should seeme by his writinge that he litle careth what passeth from his penne so it be walking against the Pope and Popish doctrine Bels VI. Chapter Of Popish Auricular confession THE XXIIII VNTRVTH SCotus sayth Bell affirmeth resolutely that Popishe auricular confession is not grounded on the holy scripture but only instituted and commaunded by the Churche of Rome The minister resolutely slaundereth Scotus Where doth that learned man teach any such doctrine Viewe his margent and nothinge is there found Bell is old ipse he the man that had rather be credited vpon his empty worde then to haue the matter com to the trial of his quotation It helpeth him not to say that he hath noted the place in his Suruay both because many haue not that booke neither doth he here in this particular place of Scotus referr him to that booke and beside what reason can he giue not to quote the place also here But to wincke at this malitious cunninge of his how doth he proue him guilty of this assertion in his Suruay I will first sett downe the doctrine of Scotus and then examin what Bell bringeth for by this meanes the goode reader shal be the better inabled to iudge of the whole matter That learned man disputinge of the necessity of confession to be made to a Priest not mentioning the word auricular whatsoeuer Bell sayeth In 4. dist 17. quast 1. enquireth by what lawe a man is bound to confession and determineth first in generall that the precept must growe from one of these lawes either from the lawe of nature or the lawe positiue of God or the lawe of Churche and descending to particulars he resolueth first that we are not bound by the lawe of nature nextly he disputeth whether it groweth from the precept of the Churche and not liking that opinion he proceedeth to the next member and sayth Breuiter c. To be short it seemeth more reasonable to hould the second member that confession falleth vnder the positiue precept of God But then we must consider sayth Scotus whether it be found explicitely or in expresse tearmes in the Gospell immediatly from Christ because it is manifest quoth he that it is not in the old lawe or whether it be from him expressely in some of the Apostles doctrine or if neither so nor so whether then it was giuen of Christ by word only and published to the Church by the Apostles And hauing made this triple diuision how confefsion might com by the precept of God that is either first commaunded by him in the Ghospell or els secondly to be found in some of the Apostle writings or lastly instituted of Christ by word of mouth only And hauing disputed of the first two membres with dislike-of the second saying It appeareth therefore that it is not of the lawe of God published by Apostolicall scripture Wherevpon he concludeth thus Vel igitur tenendum est c. Therefore we must either hould the first member to witt that it cometh from the lawe of God published by the Gospell c. or if that be not sufficient we must say the third that it is of the positiue lawe of God published by Christ to the Apostles but published by the Apostles vnto the Church without all scripture as the Church houldeth many other things published in word only by the Apostles without scripture c. How saiest thow gentle reader hath Bellbelyed Scotus or no affirminge him to teach that Popishe auricular confession is not grounded on the holy scripture but only instituted and commaunded by the Church of Rome When as he maintaineth plainly that it is de iure diuino of the lawe of God instituted of Christ himself in the Gospell or by word of mouth deliuered to the Apostles and by them to the Church yea and bringeth good reasons which before I omitted to shewe that it was not instituted by the Church as for that the Church would not haue gone about to impose so hard a precept vpon all Christians vnlesse it had been the commaundement of God as also for that it is not found where this precept is imposed by the Church but that before it holy men did thinke that this precept of consession did binde For if they alleadg quoth Extra de Penitēt remissionibus he that chapter out of the Canon lawe Euery one of either sex c. it is euident that the constitution was made by Innocentius the third in the Councell of Laterane but S. Augustin was before that time more then eight hundred yeares who affirmed confession to be necessary as appeareth in his booke of true and false penance and certaine authorityes of his are putt here in the text and certaine in That is of the Master of the Sentences upō whom Scotus doth comment the Canon lawe And not only Scotus his owne wordes nowe cited doe discharge him from the ministers false imputatiō but also the minister himself in his Suruay where he intreateth of this point wholie freeth him for hauing cited Scotus his words to proue that confession to the Priest was not found in the lawe of God extant in any of the Apostles Epistles as before hath been touched he procedeth forward and saith Thus writeth their subtile schoole doctor Scotus Suruey pag. 502. who not able to establishe auricular cōfesiion in the fcriptures flieth to their last refuge to witt to vnwritten traditiōs for in the ende of all he addeth these wordes It appeareth therfore that it is not of the lawe of God published by Apostolicall scripture Therfore we must either houlde the first member to witt that it commeth from the lawe of God published by the Gospell or yf that be not sufficient we must say the thirde to witt that it is of the positiue lawe of God published by Christ to his Apostles but published by the Apostles vnto the Church without all scripture Out of which wordes of Scotus though recited by Bell in latin only we learne that he doth not only giue himself the lye when he sayth in his Suruey that Scotus his opinion is that confession came vnto vs by tradition and affirmeth here the contrary saying that Scotus his opinion is that it was only instituted and commaunded by the Church of Rome but also by the grace of his iugling sincerity playeth two or three Three prety trickes of Bel. The first other pretty prankes in his Suruay The first is when he sayth Scotus flieth to vnwritten traditions and specifieth not wat tradition Scotus speaketh of for it is not of any tradition Ecclesiasticall or Apostolicall but of diuine tradition coming form the lawe of God and instituted of Christ himselfe by his owne mouth declared vnto the Apostles and by them to the church as before hath bene sayd The second is this Scotus quoth Bell not able to establishe auricular confession The secōd in the scriptures flieth to their last refuge to witt vnto vnwritten traditions for in the words
a man of his profession charge vs with so strange paradoxicall and blasphemous an assertion and so iniurious to the sacred bloud of the Redeemer of the whole world and that both of men and women without recoilinge of Conscience we denye what he saith how doth he proue what so boldly he affirmeth Postellus the Iesuit quoth he teacheth this execrable dnctrine which he proueth out of the Iesuits Cathechisme That Postellus was one of that order is more then I doe knowe or more then I list yet to beleue vntill I see better prooffes but yf he were he was no other then such a religious man as Luther was that ranne out of his cloister to lay the foundation of the Gospell I finde him in the Indice of the Councell of Trent commonly annexed thereunto enrolde for an heretike and so discharged from vs albeit I can hardly beleue that euer he could be so madde as to broach any such ridiculous sensles and blasphemous doctrine To iustify this of Postellus Mr. Rogers voucheth the Iesuits Catachisme that is a most scandalous and slaunderous libel made by one Pasquiere a French heretike in disgrace of that renowmed order as he knoweth full well when he citeth out of the same Catachisme two infamous verses tendinge deepely to the Pag. 187. touch of their liues which none so simple to thinke that they would publishe of themselues They are so far from being the authors of that filthie and hereticall booke that one Richeome a learned man of that Society hath sette forth a confutation thereof Should a Catholike compose a like treatise bearinge title The Church of Englands Catechisme fraught with abhominable and most odious opinions and such in truth as they vtterly detest and should I produce out of it most loathsom stuffe against them in disgracè of their religion would he not condemne both the author for a monster of the world and me for an extreame malitious slaunderer to presse them with any such damnable testimony I leaue the application to himself Pag. 17. He condemneth it in vs as an error and dreame that Christ descended downe into hell to deliuer the Soules of our forefathers and that most iniuriously for to omitte what may be brought out of sacred scripture we can not be condemned herein but the auncient fathers must beare vs company and that by the testimony of our aduersaries The fable quoth Casuin of a place vnder the 2. Instit. cap. 16. §. 9. ground called Limbus albeit it hath greate authors yet it is nothing els then a fable Sutcliffe confesseth that S. Hierom and other fathers beleued that Lib. 1. de Purgato cap. 4. there was a simbus patrum before the comming of Christ But he addeth that they affirmed it rather scholasticaliy then dogmatically which yet he neither doth nor can proue we take what he graunteth of their beleuinge the other we deny Willet also can not gainesay the same We confesse In his sâ—nopsis of the editioÌ„ 1600. pag. 353. quoth he that the fathers for the most part of them to haue bene in this error To conclude this doctrine is taught by the church of Englande when as in the Geneua Psalms allowed and authorized by receiued custome amongest them this article of the Crede He descended into hell is turned thus into meeter His soule did after this discende into the lower parts To them that longe in darkenes were the true light of their harts By what warrant therfore Mr. Rogers expoundeth them here to the contrary I know not him selfe can best tell Pag. 23. many Papistes quoth he and namely the Franciscans blushe not to say that S. Francis is the Holy Ghost Mr. Rogers blusheth not notoriously to iniury vs with the imputation of so blasphemous an assertion He quoteth in the margent for prooffe the Alcaron of the Franciscans a most shamelesse and scurrilous booke sett out by modern heretikes against that worthy and religious order It seemeth he bestoweth much of his tyme in such spirituall books as these and willingly entertaineth such witnes against vs as the Scribes and Phariseis did against Christ vntill he dischargeth himself better this iniurious and blasphemous vntruth must ly vpon him self Pag. 29. Speaking of our behauiour to the scriptures he Antidot euang in Luc. 16. p. 528. saith To the same purpose but more blasphemously Stapleton saith as the Iewes were to beleue Christ so are we simply and in euery thinge to beleue the Church of Rome whether it teacheth truth or errors He fathereth a grosse vntruth vpon Stapleton his words be these Certum est c. It is certayne that the Iewes ought to haue obeâ—ed Christ so far forth as he gaue testimony to the truth but whether he did that or no belonged not to the Iewes to make any doubt of but simply to beleue Wherefore as the Iewes ought to haue beleued Christ so ought we simply to beleue the Churche not verily whether Note these wordes against Mr. Rogers it teacheth true thinges or not but whether that be certayne to vs or not We ought not to doubt but as the father sending Christ coÌ„maunding him to be heard so Christ sending his church and commaunding that to be heard hath by his wisdom disposed that without all daunger of errour as well the Churche should be heard of vs as Christ of the Iewes True therefore it is not that Stapleton saith we are simply and in euery thinge to beleue the Church whether it teacheth truth or errors for he affirmeth the contrary and his words contayne not any impious or absurd doctrine though Mr. Rogers by ouerlashing and not reciting his wordes truly would make him to speake both impiously and falsely Pag. 49. He taxeth vs for teachinge free will and these words he citeth as out of the Councell of Trent Man Ses 6. cap. 1. hath free will to performe euen spirituall and heauenly thinges VVhat error can this be when straight after Mr. Rogers setteth downe this proposition Man may performe and do good works when he is preuented by the grace of Christ and renued by the Holy Ghost But he will say that the Councell of Trent teacheth that good workes may be done without the grace of Christ and therefore he citeth this doctrine of ours as erroneous and contrary to a former proposition of his which is this Man can not do any good worke that good is and godly being not yet regenerate But herein he doth slaunder the Councell of Trent In the very place by him quoted it rather hath the contrary and in the first Canon of that Session most plainely which is this Yfany shall say that a man is iustified before Ses 6. can 1. God by his workes which are done either by the force of humane nature or the doctrine of the lawe without diuine grace by Iesus Christ be he accursed Iudge nowe gentle Reader whether Mr. Rogers hath dealt truly with vs and the Councell of Trent or
to imploy his tyme so badly as with the touch of his creditt and perill of his owne soule to retale the vntruths of such grosse merchants In his fourth page thus he writeth Yea Arias Montanus a chief Papist in his Hebrew bible writeth in the forefromt and principall leaf of the booke There are added saith he in this edition the bookes written in Greeke which the Catholike Church following the Canon of the Hebrewes reckoneth amongest the Apocrypha The true sence of Arias Montanus words is corrupted either by Mr. Vdall or some other from whom he had them by foysting in diuers of their owne That learned man in the edition of the Antuerpiae ex osficina Christoph Plant. 1584. Hebrue Bible with the latin interlineall interpretation in the title page saith There are adioyned to this edition the bookes written in Greeke which are called Apocrypha He saith not they be Apocrypha but that they are so called by some that is the Iewes who exclude them from their Hebrue Canon which he had there sett◠forth That other addition viz which the Catholike Church following the Canon of the Hebrues reckoneth amongest the Apocrypha vpon which the force of his charge dependeth are not in Arias Montanus where Mr. Vdall had them himself best knoweth In fift page he writeth thus The Councell of Laodicea assured by a generall Councell in Trullo did sett downe the same Canon of the script urs Can. 59. which both the old Church had and our Church houldeth and commaundeth Ne aliqui c. that none besides be read and receiued in to authority How many things of note are comprised in these fewe lines against Mr. Vdall First he seemeth greatly to reuerence these two Councels which yet is but a copy of his countenance to delude the ignorant Reader for I doe not thinke that he will stande either to the one or the other though content he is to presse vs with their authority For example the Councell of Loadicea commaundeth Chrisme to be receiued after Can. 48. Can. 50. Baptisme and that the fast of lent be obserued neither of which I am sure pleaseth Mr. Vdall Likewise the Councell of Constantinople holden in Trullo alloweth of images and their veneration when it calleth them imagines venerabiles venerable images which I make no doubt nothing pleaseth his tast The same Councell forbiddeth Can 82. Can. 6. Can. 58. Bishoppes Priests Deacons and Subdeacons to marry wiues after taking of Orders and commaundeth Bishoppes not to dwell with their wiues which they marryed before they entered into the higher Orders of the Clergy which seuerity of theirs must vtterly dislike him as being in his opinion contrary to the word of God Secondly this Councell of Constantinople in Trullo is of no authority as in which the Pope neither by him self nor by his Legates was present and Pope Sergius who then liued Lib. de sex aetatibus in Iustiniano did disanulle that erraticall Synode as venerable Bede writetht with what conscience then can Mr. Vdal call that agenerall Councell and vrge the authority thereof as authenticall when as not only we but also the Protestants vtterly reiect it albeit in this point we for our parts see no cause to refuse it Thirdly true it is not that the Councell of Laodicea setteth downe the same Canon of the scriptures which the Church of England alloweth for the Apocalypse or Reuelation of S. Iohn is omitted Fourthly this Councell forbiddeth the readinge of others not there expressed yet the Church of England readeth the histories of Iudith and Toby in their publike assemblies which Mr. Vdall I suppose will hardly shewe howe it agreeth with the decree of that Councell Fiftly he hath corrupted the Councell by addinge somwhatof his owne for these words and receiued into authority be not there found VVould any euer haue thought that so many things could haue bene notedagainst him in so small a sentence If Mr. Vdall hath viewed the Originall hardly can he be excused from malice yf he hath not let him beshrewe their fingers vpon whose creditt he committed them to writinge In the same fift page he maketh vs to allowe the fourth booke of Esdras most vntruly and that contrary to his owne knowledge when as in the second page he confesseth that we account both the third and fourth of Esdras for Apocrypha Page 51. To eneruat the force of generall Councels thus he writeth Bellarmine reiecteth wholy seauen generall Lib. 1. de Concil cap. 6. and not lib. 10. cap. 60. as Mr. Vdal quoteth it Councels That learned Prelate is iniuriousoy intreated for who would not thinke that Mr. Vdall spake of lawfull and true generall Councels as though such were reiected by Bellarmine which is nothing so for he speaketh of certaine detestable conuenticles assembled by the Arrians and other like perfidious heretikes which they called generall Primum generale c. The first general Councell saith Bellarmine in the opinion of the Arrians which is reiected is the Councell of Antioch c. Ys these be detested by Protestants also for vnlawfull and wicked why is Cardinall Bellarmine singled out as though he alone refused them or the matter so cunningly deliuered as though they were reuerenced by Mr. Vdall and Protestants for lawfull generall Councels This is not to deale sincerly and to seeke truth with a pure and vpright heart vnlesse he be so carelesse as to receiue all vpon the report of others which yet can not wholy be excused Thus much shall serue at this tyme for by Gods asistance I intend hereafter more to lay open the manifould maladies of his treatise and to shewe with what weake engines he laboureth to vndermine the impregnable grounds of the Catholike Churche God graunte that the happy newes of his conuersion may crosse these my designements wherof I see no cause to dispaire if truly zeale of religion and desire of saluation which so much he would seme to thirst after hath embouldened him being a lay man to launch into the depth of these mysticall matters Let him not rely too much vnto those from whō he receiueth the substāce of that he writeth least together with the losse of his reputation he incurre also the daunger of eternall damnation and yf vpon this small warning he findeth himself to haue bene deceiued wisdom would he should more carefully looke how he trusteth where he hath bene abused with greater diligence both to examine his owne writers and also to reade our namely Cardinall Bellarmine where he shall finde the most of his obiections answeared as the Catholique author of that letter which he hath putte downe in his booke truly enformeth him To which that giueth no satisfaction alleadged by Mr. Vdall for answeare to witt that Bellarmins reasons are by the learned of his side sufficiently handled and replied vnto when as the most of the arguments in his booke be answeared by Bellarmine and nothinge doe I finde brought by Mr.
Vdal to insringe his solutions which giueth me iust cause to suspect that he is with the preconceipted sincerity of his owne doctors carryed away into error and so looketh little into the Originals which if he did he could not but finde that which he pretendeth to seeke for if he shutte not his eies against the truth as he professeth he will not VVhich that he may doe I shall not forgett to cōmend him to his mercy who desireth not the death of a sinner but that all should com to the knowledg of his name But yf it shall sal out that he will stil proceede forward in his fourmer course yet I would wishe him in writinge to abstayne from all biting and bitter words which somtyme he breaketh into that the quarrell of God may not he prosecuted like the quarrels of this world but with that modesty which becometh the prosessors of diuinity and religion And for my part sory I am that Bell hath so far giuen the raynes to his passion as with such virulent termes and insupportable insolency to cast forth his gantlet of defiance and to insult against the whole Church of God which hath made my stile before in the Preface more stirring and quicke then otherwise I would or thought conuenient least we might be condemned of cowardize or seare to the preiudice of truth which so often and so opprobriously he obiecteth against vs. Thus much of these matters now it remaineth to encounter Bell and to examin and make triall what substantiall stuffe is contayned in his Triall of the newe religion B. C. BELS TRIAL EXAMINED CENSVRED AND REFVTED The Proeme ENtending to note the principall vntruthes of Bels Pamphlet the principall part and fundamentall substance thereof I haue thought goode to take my worke orderly before me first to salute his Epistle and see what holsome stuffe he presenteth in that to his Patrones Bells Epistle Dedicatory THE 1. VNTRVTH THE Minister standeth vppon coales till his fingers be at worke and his penne busied about his harts delight and therfore not to loose any time hefalleth roundly to the matter presenting his patrons with a tricke of his occupation in his very first entrance His wordes be these The visible church quoth he as writeth Egesippus Egesip apud Eusebium host lib. 3. cap. 32. remayned a virgin free from all heresies and corruptions during the lise of the Apostles that is to say about one hundred yeares after Christ to which time S. Iohn the Euangelist was liuinge But after the death of the Apostles sayth he errors by litle and litle crept into the church as into a voyd and desert house This assertion is dolefull ynoughe and yet very profitable against all Popish Recusants of our time as who are not ashamed impudently to auouch that after so many hundred yeares from Christes ascension there hath bene no error at all in their Romish Babilon This collection will proue dolefull ynough to him selfe and not very profitable to the congregation by that time we haue sifted his words and examined the authoritye alleadged for it is powdreed with lies and iugling tricks thicke and three-sould For first if he meaneth any such error as may stand with the integritie of the Catholike faith most false it is that we deny any such error may creepe into the Church for we willingly confesse that Papias S. Ireneus and some others held the error of the Chiliastes as him selfe mentioneth straight after that S. Ciprian and diuers others with him were carryed a way in to the error of rebaptization but yet notwithstandinge these their errors they were true members of the Catholicke church seing that in questions newly springing vp error may be incurred but not allwayes heresy which importeth not only an error in the vnderstandinge but also malice and obstinacie in the will by contemninge the Church her decree and determination But if by error he meaneth heresie as no question he doth both because he saith that during the liues of the Apostles the Church was free from all heresies and corruptios but after their death error by litle and litle crept in and also for that he termeth our Church Romish Babilon or as he speaketh in his Suruey where he handleth the very same matter whorish Babylon by which Page 342. wordes it is plaine that he meaneth hereticall errors for such only maketh our Church Babylon and to forsake her true spouse Christ and to comit spirituall fornication by cleauing to newe damnable and hereticall opinions and lastly for that otherwise he proueth nothing against vs the scope of his booke being to shewe that our religion is not old but newe as being far different from the pure faith of the Apostles This then being his meaning most false it is I say that any such errors crept into the Church I meane with the corruption of the Churches sincere doctrine though I willingly graunt that diuers of the Church haue by heresie falne from true doctrine as namely the minister him selfe eyther in the Apostles time or shall doe vntill the worldes end and that by the singular prouidence of Christ who promised that hell gates should not preuayle Math. 16. against his Church and many like places to that purpose might be alledged But what say we to the authoritye of Egesippus who liued straight after the Apostles cited by Bell for iustification of that he affirmed Nothing els but that he belieth both Egesippus and also Eusebius whome he quoteth in the third booke of his history cap. 32. as the relator of those wordes of Egesippus Reade the place he that please no such thing shall there be found nor the name of Egesippus so much as once mentioned The minister was not content to Bels epistle dedicatorie borrowed frō his suruey pag. 341. 342. present his Patrons with a cast paragraffe of his Suruey makinge it the begininge of his Epistle for almost two pages together but he must also abuse both them and others with a notorious vntruth of his owne fatheringe that vppon Eusebius which is not there to be found Neyther can this dealing of his proceede from other roote then meere malice for immediatly after this sentence cited out of Eusebius in the 32. chapter of his third booke he produceth out of the 33. chapter of the same booke how Papias and Ireneus were infected with the error of the Chiliastes and that very truly which sheweth that he perused the place And in his Suruey the foresayd Pag 341. 342. places be found in like manner alleadged the one truely and the other most falsely Can this procedinge of his stewe from any other sinke then the filthy puddle of his owne corrupt conscience Beside this who knoweth not acquainted any thinge in antiquitie that Simon Magus set his heresie abroach in the Apostles time and before the death of S. Peter as Eusebius recounteth whose Lib. 2. hist cap. 12. death was long before the death of S. Iohn
the Euangelist no lesse then fiftye yeares by Bels owne computation for S. Peter was crucified as he sayth Suruey pag. 172. at Rome vnder Nero the fourtith and fourth yeare after Christe Nay the same Eusebius noteth though breifely how Simon Magus was ouercome by S. Peter Cerinthus also the heretike was in the Lib. 2. hist cap. 1. Apostles time for Ireneus maketh mention how S. Iohn the Euangelist comming to wash him selfe Lib. 3. cap. 3. in the bath finding there Cerinthus suddainly departed saying that he feared least the bath would fall for as much as the enemye of truth was then in it But what doe I dispute further in a matter so euident for certaine it is out of sacred scripture that heresies were taught long before the death of S. Iohn S. Paule who was beheaded Suruey pag. 172. at Rome the same day and yeare with S. Peter as Bell confesseth writing that Hymenaeus and Philetus erred from the truth saying the resurrection is done 2. Tim. 2. v. 18. already and had subuerted the fayth of some which conuinceth playenly that their doctrine was hereticall otherwise it could not haue subuerted faith Doth not S. Iohn also him selfe speake of the damnable Nicolaites This being so could Egesippus or Eusebius men of greate learninge and conuersant Apoc. 2. in the scriptures be ignorant of this or knowing it can it enter into any mans imagination that they would write as Bell alleadgeth them directly contrary to the truth and opposit to their owne knowledge will not any soner beleeue that the minister hath grosly slaundered them and coyned this fâ—ction in the forge of his owne braines imployed about nothing more then the hammering of lyes cauils and corruptions against the Catholicke fayth The minister proceding forward laboureth to shew how errors crept in after the death of S. Iohn and telleth out of Eusebius that Papias and Ireneus were Chiliastes which I willingly graunt but withall deny that they were therefore heretikes as before hath bene sayd and so they helpe his cause nothinge at all for he speaketh of such errors as be ioyned with heresie from which they wer free Melchior Canus also quoth he opposeth him selfe against all the Thomists and Scotists both the old and latter Papists and this he bringeth to proue that hereticall errors haue crept into the Church He slandreth that great learned man and professor of diuinity when he woulde make him of his owne opinion what he thought of the Churches infallibility in not erring he deliuereth in these conclusions The first The fayth Lib. 4. de locu cap. 4. os the Church can not faile The second conclusion The Church can not err in beleeuing The third conclusion Not only the old Church could not err in fayth but neyther the church which now is and which shall be to the end of the world eyther can or shall err in fayth And yet the minister produceth him as I sayd to proue that heresies crept into the church after the time of the Apostles how truly let the reader iudge The question then wherof Canus speaketh concerneth not any poynt of faith as in expresse termes he there affirmeth but a matter debatable in scholes True it is that Bell maketh him to say that he doth oppose him selfe against all the Thomists and Scotists both the old and latter Papistes but the worde Papistes is foisted in by him selfe by which he would haue the reader to thinck that he spake of auncient fathers when as he talketh only of old and new Scholemen as he might learne out of the very title of that chapter which is Of the authoritye of the Schole Doctors The like may be sayd of Caietanus Nauarrus and Roffensis alledged for the same purpose by Bell all which liued in our age and were well known not to haue swarued from any thinge defined by the Catholicke church as I could shew and in particular demonstrat how he abuseth them were it not to be tedious especially about the Epistle wherof I was once determined to haue sayd nothinge at all Yet must I not omitt S. Augustin cited by Bell What sayth he any thinge perhapps to proue that the Church straight after S. Iohn was infected with hereticall error Mary quoth Bell he reputed Epist ad HieroÌ„ 19. no mans writings wholy free from errors saue only the writers of the holy scriptures This serueth not the turne S. Augustin must speake of hereticall errors or else he nothinge helpeth Bell but I trowe he will not make all others beside the writers of the scriptures to haue runn into any such errors No nor it is not be imagined that he will graunt that the Communion booke or the late Prouinciall councell of England confirmed by roiall assent and least of all his owne bookes to be stayned with any such errors yea or any errors at all and yet if S. Austens words be true as Bell alledgeth them how these will be excused I know not vnlesse he will tell vs that S. Austens spake of his owne former times not of those which shold follow after and so attribute more prerogatiue to moderne writers then to the venerable learned fathers of the Primitiue church which were a desperate shift meete for a man of his shifting conditions But where I beseche him hath S. Augustin these wordes He quoteth epis ad Hierom. ep 19. Where no such thinge will be founde only he faith that no bookes are comparable for truthe with the bookes of the Prophetes and Apostle which is not to censure all writers for erroneouâ— but not to match them with the Prophetes alâ— Apostles That holy doctor was far ynoughe froâ— thincking that the church could err Speaking the church of Rome and that blessed successiâ— he saith Number the Priestes yea euen from the veâ— In Psal cont parteÌ„ Donati seate of Peter and in that order of fathers see who succded whom that is the rocke which the proude gates of hâ— doe not ouercome And to generall councels Iâ— which the church is represented he did attribuâ— so much that he excuseth Cyprian from hereâ— Lib. 1. de Baptismo cap. 18. because in his time there was no generall Councâ— which had defined that question of rebaptization which sheweth euidently that he thought the could not err And the custome and authoritâ— of the church he reputed so infallible that hâ— saith To dispute against that which the vniuersall churâ— Epist. 118. holdeth is most insolent madnes Colde comfort dotâ— S. Augustin afforde Bell to proue that heretica errors haue crept into the churche An other sentence alleadged out of S. Austiâ— where that holy Father saith that he doth not repute CoÌ„t Crescon lib. 2. cap. 32. S. Cyprians writings as canonicall but iudge them â— the canonicall and whatsoeuer doth not agree with tâ— scriptures that by his leaue he doth refuse might ver well haue bene spared for who taketh them foâ— canonicall nay
the Councel of Chalcedon both which were long time before the sayd time as Bell will not denye THE IIII. VNTRVIH PRosecuting his former matter he sayth But this Emperour that is Iustinian liued after Christ his birth about 528. yeares Ergo this pointe of Poperie is a rotten ragge of the new religion In which words he venteth out an vntruth for be it that it was then appropriated to the Pope as he sayth yet how can it be new which by his owne confession was vsed an eleuene hundred yeares agoe that is so many ages before the foundations of his religion were layd or the name of a Protestant heard of in the whole world I omitt here how many ecclesiastical names haue bene brought into the church as Homousios or Consubstantiall against the Arrians Incarnation against other heretikes the better by a new name to declare an auncieÌ„t article of faith Will Bell for al that call these words rotten raggs of a new religion He nauer dare offer it yet with no lesse reason may he doe it then he doth here the name of the Pope As for his rustical scoffinge the special grace of his writinge at the sylly people for reputing the word Pope a most sacred thing though ignoraÌ„t as he saith what is meÌ„t by the name I say no more but that he may with like grace runne vppon the name of Iesus Christ for thousands amoÌ„gst the Protestants which reuerence theÌ„ for sacred can tel as litle what is vnderstoode by it as we can by the name of the Pope But we are beholding to Bell that he vouch safeth to explicate the originall of that name telling vs that it signifieth Father and for that after so terrible a persecution of those few letters as though some misterye of iniquitie had lurked in them in such sort that in the time of Henry the eight it was rased out of all bookes and after many spightfull termes and most odius conceipts framed in the minds of the vulgar sort concerning that name he hath discharged it from all suspition of secret venim assuring good people that it is indede venerable as that which was giuen to most holy and auncient Bishopps and might in his opinion be giuen to him selfe could he haue the lucke to finger that dignitye Thus much of the Popes name now we are come to talke of his office and authoritye Bels II. Chapter Of the Popes superoiall power THE V. VNTRVTH TO season the begining of his chapter with a litle of his mendacious powder he writeth thus Bonifacius Bishoppe of Rome and the third of that name aboue six hundred yeares after Christ obteyned of Phocas then Emperor of Rome that Rome should be the head of all churches Before which time no authenticall writer can be named who euer ascribed the headship and vniuersall gouernment of all churches to the church of Rome To conuince this manifest vntruth somethinge hath bene sayd in the precedent chapter but plentifully haue I proued the contrary in The doleful knell published not long since against his Ministership both Pag. 45. 46. c. out of other authorities as also by the confession of the Lutherane Centuristes his deere brethren and lastly out of his sweete selfe that more cannot be desired Somthinge also shall be sayd in the sequell his owne wordes ministring iust occasion and here I will adioyne a litle more In the Councell of Chalcedon Maximus Bishoppe of Antioch was Act. 7. confirmed by S. Leo the first Pope Iulius the first also restored Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria to his seate Paulus Patriarch of Constantinople and Marcellus Bishoppe of Ancyra depofed vinustly by an Easterne synode as writeth Sozomenus whole words be these For as much as the care of all did belonge to him for Lib. 3. cap. 7. the dignitye of his sea he restored to euery of them their church And a litle after Athanastus and Paulus doe returne to their seates and sent the letters of Tulius to the East Bels best and most spedy answere to these prooffes will be to say that he was superiour to the Patriarches and other Bishops but had not any authority ouer inferior ministers Alas poore soule to what pityfull straights hath he brought him selfe whiles vpoÌ„ zeale he lyeth for the credit of the coÌ„gregatioÌ„ THE VI. VNTRVTH IN his arguments propounded against the superiority of the Bishoppe of Rome wherof afterward I meane more fully to entreat this is one Seauently the famous councel of Chalcedon gaue the Bishope of Constantinople equall authority with the Bishope of Rome in all ecclesiasticall affaires In which words is one vntruth cunningly couched for he calleth that here the decree of the Councell which was by the ambition of Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople effected in the absence of the Romane legates Yf Bell can proue that this surreptitious decree of the Easterne Bishopes was euer confirmed then were it some thinge which he bringeth But the Bishop of Rome his legates withstood that their indirect proceedinge pronouncing it to be contrary to the decrees of the Nicene Councel and Lucentius in particular Se the 16. Action spake confidently saying that the Apostolicke sea ought not to be abased in their presence with other notable wordes tendinge to the same purpose And Pope Leo him selfe in his Epistle to Anatolius did bitterly inueigh against him for this his presumption and going against the Nicene canons admonishing him also how his legates which in his stead wer presidents of the Councell did withstand that his vnlawfull attempt for which cause he disclaymeth vtterly for giuing his consent Far be it â—pist 53. quoth he from my conscience that so wicked a desire should be holpen with my labor and of all that minde not high things but consent to the humble and he giueth the reason because it were as he sayth to infringe the Canons of the Nicene Councell and to depriue the sea of Alexandria of beinge the second in dignitye and Antioch of beinge the third and all Metropolitane Bishops of their honour About the same matter he wrott also to the Emperour shewing his great dislike of Anatolius ambition putting him in minde what special fauour he had afforded him concerning his consecration insinuating playnly how he deserued to haue bene deposed for falling into the heresie of Eutiches and for beinge wickedly promoted by Dioscorus of Alexandria to be Bishoppe of Constantinople yet because he renounced his heresie at the entreaty of the Emperour the Pope dispeÌ„sed with him VVe sayth Pope Leo hauing respect to your fayth Epist. 54. and intercession whereas the beginings of his consecration were not sound by reason of them that did it desired rather to be gratious then iust to the end we might thereby by applying of remedies pacifie all stirres which the deuill had procured which things ought rather to haue made him modest then immoderate in the end he exhorteth the Emperour to labour about the repressing of his insolencie Endeuour
Much more might be sayd to the same purpose but it shall not neede when as the thinge is so cleere that our mortall enimies confesse it for the Magdeburgian historiographers after relation how the Roman Legates with-stood the audacious attempt of Anatolius and his confederates write thus VVherfore the iudges of the Synod decreed that the Centur. 5. col 949. principall primacye and honour was to be left vnto the Bishop of Rome and that notwithstanding somethinge was to be giuen to the Church of Constantinople because that city was adorned with the dignitye of the Empire and was called newe Rome that it might haue power to ordayne Metropolitanes in the dioceses of Asia Pontus and Thrace yet so that it might be lawfull for the Metropolitanes of euery prouince to ordayne Bishops This was that dignity and equalitye of priuiledge which they desired which notwithstandinge they obteyned not Pope Leo wholy irritating that decree as hath bene saide Thus haue we not only conuinced Bell of lying and corruption but so far prâ—uayled against him that by meanes of that decree by which he would ouerthrowe the superioritye of the church of Rome we haue abundantly proued the contrary and so we may say with the Prophet The arrowes of litle ones are become their woundes Psal 63. Neuer had gallant Minister worse fortune for not only his blowe is still defeated but his weapon disgratiously beaten backe vppon his owne face What sayth he now to the famous Councell of Chalcedon The Popes authoritye maugre his malice is cleerely proued out of that as hath bene sayd and so nothinge found there that can relieue his cause but such Vnguentum baculinum as he list not to meddle with al and that not only touching the Popes superiority wherof we haue spoken sufficiently but also other matters for example that Councell decreed thus Virginem c. It is not lawfull for a virgine Sessi 16. â—â—n 16. which hath consecrated her selfe to God and likwise a Monke to contract Matrimonye But if they be found doing any such thinge let them be excommunicated Did Bell for all that neuer in his whole life heare of any such creatures that remayne so far from being excommunicated that they be highly commended as the principall aduauncers of the Gospell and doth he not knowe a deare freind of his that hath written See Bels suruey pag. 231. 235. c. in defence of such wicked and filthy wedlocke Gladly then would I be enformed how his Ministershippe can eyther defend such sacrilegious wretches from the force of that Canon or his friende from beinge opposite to the doctrine of that Councell To deny the authoritye of that Sinode which him selfe vrgeth calling it a famous Councell were a base shift and nothing becomming his grauity and constancy but rather the leuitie of some mutable minister especially that being authorised by Act of Parlament which for certayne reasons he must defende but how in this case God knoweth that knowes all things THE VII VNTRVTH IT followeth immediatly in Bels booke Eightly the Councell of Nice prescribed limites as well to the Bishop of Rome as to other Patriarches This is a manifest vntruth and that by the iudgment of any that is indifferent The place he meaneth Can. 6. for he noteth none is in the sixt canon in these wordes Let auncient customes be kept throughout Egipt Libia and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria haue power of all these because the Bishop of Rome hath that custome Out of which wordes so far of it is that the iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome is confined within any limits that her ample and vniuersall superioritye is confirmed for nothinge is here determined concerning the church of Rome but that is made the rule of other churches as Pope Nicholas the first noteth who also affirmeth Epist. ad MichaëleÌ„ that the Nicene Councell appoynted nothing about the Romane church because the authoritye therof was not from men but from God In the former vntruth diuers times was it mentioned our of Pope Leo as also out of his legates in the Councell of Chalcedon that the Grecians went against the Nicene Canons in their presumpreous attempt But to make the matter most clere to wâ—tt that the Councell of Nice did not limitt the Popeâ— iurisdiction but contrary wise allowed and approued nis supreame authoritye beside the restimony of Pope Nicholas alread alledged I will demonstrate the same out of the Chalcedon Synode which Bell calleth a famous Councell as it was in deede and therfore worthyly admitted by our country In the sixtene session Paschasinus the Popes legate cited this very Canon for the Popes Primacye for after the iudge had sayd Let both sides propound Concil Chalced. Act. 16. canons â—t followeth in these words The reuerend man Paschasinus Bishop and vicar of the Apostolike sea recited The sixt canon of the three hundred and eightene holy fathers That the Church of Rome hath alwayes had the These wordes are more clere in â—hâ— Nicene Councel â—t selfe See a little before Primacye But let Egipt hould that the Bishop of Alexandria haue power of all because the Bishop of Rome hath this custome Behold Paschasinus proueth the Popes supremacye out of that canon from which Bell would deduce the contrary And the Grecian Bishops were so far from contradicting this which no question they would had the canon bene plaine to the contrary senâ—e as the minister maâ—ntayneth that their silence confessed it to be most true Yea the iudges them selues though desirous to aduance the dignitye of Constantinople yet were they so ouercome with the light of truth shining in that canon that vppon the former euidence they sayd VVeperfectly perceiue all primacy and principall Act. 16. honour according to the canons to be kept for the Archbishop of old Rome most beloued of God The true meaning â—nertore of the canon is that the Bishope of Rome before the definition of any Councell vsed to committ the gouernement of Egipt Libia and Pentapolis to the Bishop of Alexandria as Pope Nicholas the first doth expound it and is plaine out of the Councell of Chalcedon which being so Bell remayneth guilty of an vntruth and the Popes eminent authority confirmed by that very canon which he brought to ouerthrowe it What an vnlucky hand hath this minister that striking at others still woundeth him selfe THE VIII IX AND X. VNTRVTHES AFter Bell had produced many arguments against the Popes soueraigne superioritye he maketh a recapitulation of them all but so handsomly that for their better grace he doth florish them ouer with new lyes To stande vpon one that hath a couple of followers Fourthly quoth he seing Polycarpus S. Polycrates S. Ireneus and S. Ciprian with many Bishops of Europe Asia and Affrica contemned the Bishop of Rome his decrees and supposed supremacye That S. Polycarpus contemned the Popes decrees is most false and vntruly collected out of his former argument in
which no mention is made of any decree concerninge the keeping of Easter the matter then in question as shall appeare afterwarde when we come to answere that argument how could he then contemne that which was not extant See the scrupulous conscience of the minister because before he passed ouer the matter without the marke of his occupation he hath here made lewde restitution clapping three vntruthes together one in the necke of an other The first is now recited and to make it the more manifest I will adioyne what he writeth of this matter in his Motiues His wordes be these In like manner quoth he though with more modesty dissented Anicetus pag. 145. an other Bishoppe of Rome from S. Polycarpe Bishoppe of Smyrna where I desire the good reader to note his malicious dealinge his rooted hatred against those Popes whom he confesseth to haue bene blessed Martyrs Anicetus quoth he dissented from S. Polycarpe and why I beseech him doth he not rather say that S. Polycarpe dissented from Anicetus I trust he will not deny but that S. Anicetus had the better quarrell except he list to condemne the church of Englād and the whole Christian world that obserue Easter according to the custome of Rome Besides this is it not most certayne that S. Polycarp was far inferiour in dignitye to S. Anicetus when as so much is euident out of the premisses in which we haue heard how the Patriarche of Constantinople did emulate some prerogatiues of Rome and not any of Smyrna An other tricke of his rācour also sheweth it selfe when as the one is with him plaine Anicetus the other S. Polycarpe why I beseech him was not blessed Anicetus also a martyr as well as S. Polycarpe it can not be denyed and yet doth this minister out of his damnable deuotion to the sea of Rome entreate him in this disgratious manner But sufficient it is for my purpose that he confessethe dissention betwixt S. Anicetus and S. Polycarpe to haue bene with more modesty to witt then it was betwixt S. Victor and the Bishops of Asia which argueth playnely that no decree was made by S. Anicetus for then the dissention could not haue bene conteyned within the limitts of modesty yf Polycarpus had resisted his decree neyther could he haue bene in better case then the Bishopps of Asia were who withstood S. Victors decree and so the dissention had bene as immodest which seing Bell denyeth consequently he graunteth that he hath dealt falsy in accusing S. Polycarpe to haue contemned S. Anicetus decree when as he neuer published any such what soeuer Bell with lying lippes affirmeth to the contrary This is the first vntruth The next is where he saith S. Polycrates contemned the Bishoppe of Rome his decrees for where doth he find him enrold for a Saint not in the Romane martyrologe not in Eusebius or S. Hierom. no nor in the Centuries of Magdeburge where they talke of him He is a Saint only of Bels canonization because he resisted the Pope which title if it will procure any such grace the minister him selfe is like to proue a great and monsterous Saint for neuer I dare say did Polycrates carry him selfe so insolently and in such vnspeakable contumelious manner as Sir Thomas doth The third vntruth is that S. Ireneus contemned the Bishoppe of Rome his decrees and his supposed supremacie for what father so auncient as he writeth more clerely for his supremacye Speaking of the Romane church these be his words To this church by reason of the more potent principalitye it is necessary Lib. 3. cap. 3. that euery church should come that is those faythfull people which be euery where in which that tradition which came from the Apostles hath bene kept of them which be in all partes Thus he writeth in defence therof but that euer he oppugned the Popes decrees or contemned his supremacy is most falsly affirmed by Bell as shall appeare when we come to examin his second argument against the Popes Supremacy from whence he would seme to haue collected this but before I come to that pointe I must here admonish the good reader that whereas Bell desperatly affirmed that the Bishoppe of Romes superioritye was not hearde of till six hundred yeares after Christ the contrary hath not only bene proued sufficiently before out of other authorityes but also out of those testimonies which he bringeth as most clere against it to wittout of the Chalcedon and Nicene Councels and also out of S. Ireneus as in the premisses hath bene sayd and yet further occasion will be offered to verify the same truth out of some of those arguments also which come now to be examined such is his great grace in beating downe of Popery and writing against him selfe The rest of his chapter consisteth of eight arguments culled together to shew that the Popes supremacy began in the tyme of Phocas the Emperour in the yeare of Christ 607 which in particular I will discusse But before I must haue a litle crash with him about the title which is of the Popes superroiall power for the word superroiall I suppose slylye mocketh at that which venerable antiquity confesseth and him selfe must not denye To content my selfe with the testimony of S. Chrisostom who speaking not only of Bishops but inferiour clergye men instructeth them how to deale with secular potentates comming vnworthyly to the Sacraments in this manner Yf a duke quoth he yf a Consull yf he that weareth Hom. 83. in Math. the crowne cometh vnworthyly stoppe and hinder him thow hast greater power then he and the minister denyeth that the late Quene might preach the Gospell or administer the Sacraments c. which Motiuos pag. 80. functions not withstanding other of their clergye might execute whereof it ensueth that in these spirituall pointes their power was aboue that of the Quenes and so truly in a good sence may be called superroiall which so much his superscoffing grauitye semeth to deride and taunt Now to his arguments An answere to Bels arguments against the supreame spirituall iurisdiction of the Pope FIrst then quoth he S. Polycarpus would not yelde to Anicetus Bishoppe of Rome in the controuersy abou◠Easter which for all that he would and must haue done yf the Bishoppe of Rome had had any true prerogatiue ouer him THE ANSWERE IT more argueth the Bishoppe of Rome his superiority that S. Polycarpus the scholler of the Apostles in his old yeeres vndertooke so longe a iorney to Rome to conferr with S. Anicetus then it proueth that he was not his superiour because S. Polycarpus retayned still his former opinion for why should he more haue trauailed to Rome then S. Anicetus haue gone to him to Smyrna being a man reuerent for his gray hayres and venerable for his acquaintance and conuersation with the Apostles had it not bene that he acknowledged superiority to Anicetus as being the successour of S. Peter But the reason why Polycarpus might
forged any canons as Bell and such like with lying lippes affirme who measure others according to them selues both for that they appealed to Rome out of Affrike before the tyme of the Nicene councell and so litle needed they had they bene so wicked to forge any thinge to proue that which was practised before and for that straight after appeales were likewise admitted and also for that the Bishop of Rome had his Legate there resident amongst them for the dispatch of ecclesiasticall busines as out of Pope Leo hath bene declared The same thinge also appeareth in that neither the Affricane Bishops nor S. Austen euer obiected any such crime of forgery to any of those Popes as the ministeriall fraternity of forgers doe but contrariwise behaued them selues in most dutifull manner giuing them very reuerent honourable titles protestinge also their obedience and subiection to them as hath bene saide and so they be far vnlike to our Protestāt professours that persecute them with scrrilous and odius termes As therefore the vnseemely carriage and bitter accusation of our Gospellers doth manifestly argue their spighte to these Popes and that they condemne them as guilty of forgery so their dutifull and obedient deportment towardes those holy Popes giue the worlde to vnderstande that they were far from any such malitious conceipt and therefore albeit I might content my selfe with that which hath bene saide yet more to cleare them from the venim of Bels aspish lippes and to free them wholy from the malitious imputation of the minister and that in the iudgement of any indifferent reader I say further that these canons of the Nicen◠councell allowing appeales to Rome might be in that Councell though nowe not founde there nor yet extant then in those copies sent from the East to the Bishops of Affrike for as much as most certayne it is that there were diuers canons more then be nowe founde or were sent to Affrike many being perished either by the malice of the Arrians whose power ouerswaied the Easterne churches and were most mortall enemies to that Councell which is very probable els by some other dismoll accident of fire or otherwise How soeuer it be that many canons be wantinge is most certayne for one of the canons of that Councell was about the obseruation of Easter day as testifieth Constantine in his epistle and also Epiphanius Apud Euseb lib. 3. de vita Constantini Heres 69. Epist do Synodis Arimin Seleucien Lib. 10. hist cap. 6. Epist. 110. Lib. 1. cap. 8. and Athanasius but this canon is in none of those twenty which be nowe extant and of which only so many yeares since Ruffinus maketh mention in his history It was prohibited also in the same Councell that there shoulde be two Bishops in one place as S. Austen affirmeth but no such canon or decree now appeareth And to omitt diuers other particulars not only other Protestants but Bell also both in his other bookes and in this pamphlet in the next chapter obiecteth out of Socrates that a canon was made in the Nicene councell by the suggestion of Paphnutius which permitted Priests to remayne with their former wiues but this Canon is no where to be founde amongst amongst those twenty Wherefore yf Pope Celestinus must be condemned for a falsary because he cited a canon which is not now extant nor mentioned by Ruffinus by the same reason must Constantinus Athanasius Epiphanius Augustinus Socrates yea and not other Protestants only but Bell him selfe be sentenced of forgery for citinge of that canon which is not now extant amongst those twenty Albeit that which hath bene saide may giue full satisfaction to any man of moderation yet more to musle the mouth of the minister I adde and say that these canons of appeale being founde formally in the Councell of Sardica where in most ample and playn words both in the fourth seuenth canons Can. 4. 7. appellations to Rome are ratified and confirmed both Pope Sozimus and others call them by the name of the Nicene canons though they be founde in the Councell of Sardica and the reason is for that these two Councels are accounted for all one both because the same fathers that were present at Nice were also a great number of them at Sardica and also for that no newe thinge touching faith was there enacted whereas in other Councels newe heresies were condemned and this is the cause why it maketh not any number for being a generall and approued Councell it should be the secōd in order being celebrated an eleauene yeares after the death of Constantine the great as the Magdeburgians them selues relate out of Socrates Centur 4. col 747. Theodoretus and Sozomenus for they solemnely report the whole councell together with these two canons of appellations to Rome where Bell for his colde comfort may reade them it shoulde I say be the second being some yeares before that of Constantinople but that for the reason alleadged it is reputed all one with that of Nice and so maketh not any number This also is confirmed for that in the copie of one Dionisius who a thousand yeares since translated the Nicene Councell out of the Greeke tongue yet extant in the Abbey of S. Vedastus at Arras Lib. 2. de Roman◠pontif cap. 25. as Cardinall Bellarmine reporteth all the canons of the Coucell of Sardica are founde adioyned with those of Nice as of one Councell What maruaile then yf Pope Sozimus or Bonifacius cite the canons of the Councell of Sardica for the canons of Nice when as they were accounted for all one and in all probability founde them in their copies so ioyned together Bels great difficulty is dissolued and the Pope discharged from all forgery and false packing Now to come vpon him and to beate the ende of his owne weapon vpon his owne face what saith he to the canons of the Councell of Sardica or Nice which graunt appeales to Rome as the Legates of the Pope veryfyed to the Affricane Bishops were they founde formally in the Nicene councel Bell were ouerthrowne for euer but they be in the Councell of Sardica celebrated straight after which is reputed one with this of Nice and of soueraigne authority what starting hole will he finde out to auoyde this blowe O miserable minister whose carcase is still beaten like an anuile with the hammers of his owne arguments His other reasons out of the Councell of Chalcedon and Nice are answered before Bels III. Chapter Of the marriage of Priests and ministers of the Church THE VI. VNTRVTHE THe minister pleading here hard for the wiuing of Priests hath these wordes For this respect did holy Paphnutius stande vp in the Councell of Nice at such times as the Fathers then and there assembled together thought to haue seuered married Priests and Bishops from their wiues and tolde them according to gods worde that to forbidde marriage to Priests was too seuere a lawe He yelded this reason
because marriage is so honourable in all sorts of men Thus writeth Cassiodorus thus writeth Socrates thus writeth Sozomenus And thus lieth the minister for none of these there speake any one worde that Paphnutius shoulde tell them that according to Gods worde to forbid marriage to Priests was too seuere a lawe he speaketh not one syllable of such as were Priests already as though he woulde haue them permitted to marry as Bell falsely reporteth in the fore alledged words and more plainely in the page following where he saith that Paphnutius motion was approued of the whole Councell and therevpon the matter was left as indifferent for euery Priest either to marry or not to marry at his owne choice False I say it is that either Cassiodorus Socrates or Sozomenus speake any one worde of the marriage of Priests or haue any such thinge that the matter was left indifferent for euery Priest to marry or not to marry at his owne choyce Why did he not quote the places where his reader might haue tried the truth of his relation what meaneth this flying of the light what els but that he had rather haue his bare worde taken then the matter examined It will not sorue his turne that in the ende of his Chapter he referreth the reader to his Suruay where those places be cited for that booke is not alwayes at hand and beside no such speciall place is there named that without difficulty what is desired can not be founde But view the places who please and the fidelity and sincere conscience of the minister will soone appeare for as much as the contrary of that Bell affirmeth remayneth there vpon recorde Cassiodorus the author of the tripartite history in the place quoted By Bell citeth Sozomenus from whom he receiueth that which he there reporteth which is this speaking of the Nicene Councell that it did seeme good to some to bring in a lawe that Bishoppes and Priests Deacons and Subdeacons shoulde not sleepe with their wiues which they had married before consecration But Paphnutius the confessor rising yp in the midst withstode it consessing marriage to be honourable and sayinge that the comapny of a mans owne wife was chastity and he aduised the Councell not to make any such lawe affirminge that it was a greate cause which might be to them or their wiues the occasion of fornication This doth he alleadge out of Sozomenus leauing yet something out which that author hath the cause as I suppose yf any place be left for coniecture why Bell rather quoted Cassiodorus then Sozomenus For Sozomenus addeth also these words of Paphnutius immediatly following And that the old tradition of the church was that those which were made Priests being not yet married should not afterwarde marry wiues but they which were called to that order being married shoulde not be separated from their wiues which they had The very same thinge hath Socrates By which the good reader may iudge what a conscience the minister hath when he blusheth not to say that the Councell left it indifferent for euery Priest to marry or not to marry at his owne choyce when as there is no one worde spoken of those that married after taking of holy orders but only of those that were ordered after they were married as both Cassiodorus out of Sozomenus and Sozomenus him selfe together with Socrates ioyntly asfirme nay when as Sozomenus and Socrates both say that the olde tradition of the Church was that those which tooke holy orders vnmarried might not marry at all This being so who will deny that the minister had not great reason neither to cite their wordes nor quote their places fathering so grosse an vntruth vpon them But some will say yet at least it appeareth out of the former authors that those which were married folke and afterwarde became Priests might still vse the company of their wiues which is agaynst the practise of the Romayne Church To this I say first that our question is not now about that pointe but whether Bell hath not slaundered these authors when he maketh them to say that thinge which they say not but haue the cleane contrary Secondly notwithstanding I answere that this may seme to make for the custome of the Grecians who retayne still those wiues which they had married before entring into holy orders but it helpeth nothinge at all our late Apostates that after their consecration and vowe of chastity without all scruple nay yf we list to belieue them with the testimony of a good conscience prouided them selues of younge yoake fellowes for the comfort of their declining yeares and spirituall begetting the liberty of the newe gospell yet in truth doth it neither releue the cause of the Grecians for so much as neither any such thinge is extant in the Nicene Councell and pregnant proffes to shewe that no such thing was euer there decreed for Sozomenus and Socrates being knowne heretiks deserue no credit especially the first of them being noted by blessed S. Gregory for Lib. 6. ep 31. one that hath many lyes and Socrates knowne for a man of like quality as I coulde easily shewe were it not that I desire all conuenient breuity but principally for that S. Hierom and S. Epiphanius who liued more nere to the time of the Nicene Councell then the other twayne did affirme so much of the custome of the Eastern church as can not stande with their former testimonies as straight after shall be handled Wherefore seing it must nedes be that either Sozomenus and Socrates erre from the truth or S. Hierome and S. Epiphanius none I thinke of indifferēcy but will preferre Catholikes before heretikes and those that liued nearer to the tyme of the Nicene Councell then those that were farther of and this is so certayne that I durst remitt the matter to Bell him selfe and such like did it not concerne so much their owne freholde and that the ponderous passion of wiuing without all respect of reason did beare downe the ballance to the wronge side But howsoeuer this shall fall out whereof by and by I shall haue more occasion to speake Bell the Ragmaster remaineth conuicte of a Notorious vntruth notwitstanding his often protestation of sincerity and plaine dealinge THE XII VNTRVTHE IN the same third Chapter pursuing still his former subiecte he vttereth two vntruthes with one breath in these wordes For this respecte was it that Priests were euer marryed in the Easte Churche vntill these our daies and in the west churche generallye for the space of three hundred eightie and fiue yeares at which tyme Pope Siricius excited by Satan prohibited mariage as an vnlawfull thinge Heer I say be two rouzinge vntruthes The first is Priests were euer maryed in the Easte churche For S. Epiphanius an auncient father and one of the Greeke church testifieth the cleane contrary Sanctum sacerdotium c. The holie Ad finem operis cōtra hereses Preishoode quoth he is for the most
parte of virgins or of vnmarryed folke or if those be not sufficient for the ministerye of those which conteyne them selues from their owne Heres 59. wiues And in another place But the Churche quoth he doth not admitt the husbande of one wife yet liuinge and begetting children S. Hierom likewise writing against Vigilantius saith VVhat shall the Churche of the Easte doe what the Churche of Egipte and the Apostolike sea which take virgins for their Clerks or contynent or if they be marryed giue ouer to be husbandes Will Bell for all this tell vs that Priests were euer marryed in the Easte churche and with out all respect giue S. Epiphanius and S. Hierom â— worde of disgrace it would beseeme him â—â—ch better quietlye to disgest it him selfe his iust desertes allotting him that speciall fauour Out of these two testimonies also the good reader may note whether Sozomenus and Socrates are to be credited affirminge that by permission of the Nicene Councell Easterne Priests marryed before orders might still haue the company of their former wiues as in the precedent section was handled Nay the same is most certaine out of the very Nicene Synode it selfe wher it Can. 3. is forbidden Bishops Priests and Deacons to keep any wemen in their house beside their mother sister or aunt no mention is made of any wife which yet should haue bene in the first place if any such tolleration at the suggestion of Paphnutius had bene graunted And if their former wiues were as our aduersaries pretend out of Socrates and Sozemenus permitted them why should the cohabitation of other wemen be interdicted Did they allowe them theire wiues and not suffer them to haue maydes for the dispatche of houshold busines and bringinge vp of the leuiticall frye which coÌ„monly is plentiful in that generatioÌ„ if we may gesse by those of our tyme who so simple as seeth not the incongruitye of these two or perceiâ—eth not that the Councell for biddinge any mayde seruante to dwell in Priests howses did neuer graunte them the cohabitation and carnall companye of their wiues as our Protestantes pretende Furthermore how can it be true that the Nicene Councell permitted as the same authors reporte Bishops to enioye the companye of their former wiues when as some hundred yeares after in the false Synode of Constantinople holden in Trullo Can. 48. howsoeuer the raynes were loosed to other of the Clergie yet Bishops were forbidden to dwell with their former wiues which conuinceth that no such leaue was graunted by the Councell of Nice and so crazeth the creditt of them which affirme that Synode to haue permitted Bishops Preists c. to remaine still with their former wiues To these former testimonies and reasones I will adioyne one more both against Bell that desperatlie mainteyneth that the mariage of Ecclesiasticall persons hath alwaies bene vsed in the Easte churche vntill these our dayes and also against Socrates and Sozomenus saying that the Councell of Nice did permitt them to enioye the company of those wiues which they hadd maried before takinge of holie orders and it shal be of a Greek Doctor that liued in the tyme of the Nicene Councell to witt Eusebius whose wordes be these Veruntamen Notwithstandinge it is meete that they should Lib. 1. Demonstrat euang cap. 9. refraine them selues from the companye of their wiues who are consecrated and busied in the ministerie and seruice of God What plentye of authorities mighte be brought to ouerthro We this palpable vntruth but what neede more when as these already tickle the Minister and fetche blood for they are so farr of to be auoyded any cauillinge shifte that the Lutheran Magdeburgians dislike two of these fathers bycause they speake not herein according to their mynde as is euident in their fourthe Centurye where they note S. Epiphanius as erringe CeÌ„tur 4. col 303. aboute that pointe citinge parte of his wordes before by me produced and afterwardes they accuse many doctors for inclyning too much vnto that opinion yea that they did publiklye professe that it was not lawfull for Priests to haue wiues and amongst others they tax Eusebius for one cyting the very wordes by me alledged But what doe I dispute in a matter so plaine when as the erraticall Councell of Constantinople holden in Trullo which Bell so solemnly alleageth in his Suruey Pag. 224. and 227. for the proofe of Priests mariage is in this pointe directly against him for thoughe it allowed such Priests as after mariage receiued orders to continue still with their former wiues yet did it vtterly forbid Priests after orders to mary as appeareth out of the sixth CanoÌ„ Nay to this day the Greeks haue no such custome which is sufficient to confound the bolde assertion of the minister if nothing els were added Thus much of his first vntruth THE XIII VNTRVTHE THe next vntruth fellowe to the former is that in the West churche the marryage of Priests was generally lawfull till the tyme of Siricius For refutation whereof I haue spoken so plentifullye in my late book against Bell that it is The Doleful knel. pag. 51. and pag. 97. 98. in vaine to say more There I haue by irrefragable testimonies proued that Priests marriage was prohibited before and by diuers reasons drawen out of Siricius owne epistle made it manifest that he was not the firste who enacted that lawe but that commaunded the due obseruation of that which Apostolicall antiquitie had in that behalfe ordeyned To that place thefore I referre the good reader for I loue not alwaies to be iangling of one thinge after the manner of the great Bell of Rascall Here sufficient it is to chamber his clapper to oppose vnto him the wordes a litle before alleadged out of S. Hierom against Vigilantius and to choke him with the authoritie of his Magdeburgian brethren who reprehend S. Hierom for writinge thus in defence of his bookes against Iouinian The Apostles are chosen either virgins or contynent Cent. 4. col 477. after marryage Bishops Priests Deacons are chosen either virgins or onely such as for euer remaine chaste after priosthood which wordes of Saint Hierom they much mislike and to hamper him with the graue authoritie of the second Councell of Arles celebrated about the yeare of Christe three hundred twentye sixe according to the accounte of the Centuristes Cent. 4. col 604. Can. 2. of Magdeburge which decreed that non ought to be assumed to Preisthood being maryed vnles conuersion were promised What conuersion could this be but the forsakinge of his wiues carnall company THE XIIII VNTRVTH SIr Thomas continuing still his declamation in behalfe of Priests marriage procedeth also forwarde in lying writing thus Yea Priests continued still marryed in Germany for the space of one thousand seuenty fower yeares vntill the dayes of the vngratious Pope Hildebrand who termed himselfe Gregorie the seuenth so soone as he had crept into the Pope dome by naughty meanes What
this graceles gospeller writeth of blessed Pope Gregorie whom generally the Historiographers of that tyme diuers of them saintes in heauen do highly cōmend litle importeth a sufficiēt argumēt for his innocēcie zeale of true religiō it is that all nouelling sectmasters bād against him neuer shall Bell shew that he crept into the popedome by naughty meanes thoughe most easie to proue that his ministership ran frō his priesthoode vpon no holie motiues But to the matter An vntruth it is that Priests still cōtinued married in Germanie for the space of one thousand seuenty sower yeares as he boldlye affirmeth which I haue proued most demōstratiuelie against him in the Dolefull knell For his pag. 101. 102. manner is againe and againe to inculcate the same thing so neuer lacketh matter for newe bookes thoughe botched together of such rotten raggs as were handled els where so that Bell cann make a new title and a litle chaunge of the order to begett a new pamphlet at any tyme vpon small warninge But I liste not to imitate his vaine thoughe iustely I mighte for why may not I singe the same songe if he fiddle still the same tune Wherfor referringe the good reader to the former place I will here only adioyne one testimony not mentioned before and it is of Pope Zacharie who liued eight hundred years agoe and so longe before the tyme he mentioneth This good Pope writing to S. Bonifacius our worthy countryman then Bishopp the apostle of Germany hath these wordes speaking of Priestes From the day of taking priesthode they are to be forbidden yea euen from their owne wiues Of this decree the Centur. 8. Cel. 704. Magdeburgians make mention True it is that they score it vp for one of his errors thatiudgement proceeding from the error of their doctrine but it giueth vs a sufficient warrante to score vp that also for a notorious vntruth which the minister speaketh of the longe lawfull liberty of Ecclesiasticall wiuinge in Germany THE XV. XVI XVII XVIII AND XIX VNTRVTHES NOwe followeth a litter of diuers lyes conteyned in three or fower lynes of which I must speake in particular Pleading still for the marriage of the clergie he saith For this respecte was it that many learned and holie bishops were maryed in the auncient tyme and flourishinge state of the Church vz S. Gregorie S. Clement S. Spiridion S. Philogonius S. Eupsichius and others This he bringeth to proue that they marryed after receiuinge of holie orders or at least vsed still the carnall company of their former wiues or els he proueth nothinge But in these wordes is conteyned a notorious lye with siue followers and others Why hath he not noted in his margent sufficient authoritie to iustify what he saith will these tricks of trustie sir Thomas neuer be lefte It serueth not the turne to tell vs that he hath done it in his Suruey and that for two reasons The first is because many haue not that booke and no reasone can he alleadge for not addinge the quotations here but onlye that he would haue his ignorant reader to take all vpon the reporte of his worde Secondly for that I finde not in all his Suruey any Clement noted for a marryed bishop and yet haue I viewed ouer the third and fourth chapters of his third parte where he entreateth of that matter But to runne ouer his particular catalogue That S. Gregorie the father of S. Gregorie Nazianzen did marry after he was Bishopp is one vntruth for he was marryed before euer he was christened as he may learne out of that funerall Oration of Nazianzen which in his Suruey he Pag. 222. citeth to proue him a marryed bishoppe That S. Clement after the dignitie of bishopp tooke any wife is a second vntruth for I challeng him confidently thoughe litle knowinge what Clement he meaneth That S. Spiridion was marryed I graunte but Bell must proue that it was after he was created Bishopp and not before or at leaste that he vsed the company of his wife which he will neuer doe and so that maketh the third vntruth The verie selfe same thinge I say of S. Cheremon and S. Philogonius which make vpp the fourth and fift vntruthes THE XX. VNTRVTH OF Saint Eupsichius more consideration is to be had for Bell not onely here maketh him a marryed bishoppe but also in his Suruey Pag. 222. saith that he was Bishopp of Cesarea and a marryed man and soone after his marryage martyred for lesus Christe For if this be true which so confidentlye he affirmeth it seemeth very plaine that his marryage did followe holie orders But out vpon the currupt conscience of this casta way I vtterly deny that he was euer Bishopp or in any sacred orders at all being only a laye man and of an honorable family How doth he proue the contrary For iustification of that he saith he quoteth in the margent the Tripartite historie and Nicephorus Lib. 6. cap. 14. Lib. 10. cap. 10. The wordes of the tripartite historie bethese Furthermore at that tyme they say that Basilius a Priest of the churche of Ancyra ended his life by martirdome and Eupsichius a citizen of Cesarea in Cappadocia hauing latelie marryed a wife being yet as it were a brydgroome Where is here any mention of his being Bishoppe Sozomenus from whom Cassiodorus the compiler of the triparaite historie tooke those Wordes saith that Eupsichius was ex patricys of the senators or nobilitie without any mention of his Episcopall dignitie Nicephorus his second authour deliuereth the story in this manner Hoc ipso tempore c. At this verie tyme Basilius also a priest of the Church of Ancyra ended his life by martirdome and likewise Eupsichius of Cesarea in Cappadocia borne of an auncient family and honorable kinred who a litle before had marryed a wife and was as yet a bridegroome And this is so certaine that the Lutheran Centurists who would as willinglie heare newes of a bishopp marryed after his consecration as Bell but being heerin not so impudent as he that seemeth to be ashamed of nothing but truth and honestie teporte him onely to haue bene a noble man Eupsichius say they was Centur. 4. Col. 1430. of the Cittie of Cesarea discended of the nobilitie of Cappadocdia slaine by the Citizens of Cesarea c. and they cite Sozomenus before mentioned Whether this be not a gallant vntruth meet for such a reformed minister and professor of the sincere gospell I referre me to the iudgement of the prudent and indifferent reader I cannot perswade my selfe but had he not wholy consumed his conscience with continuall custome of carelesse sinninge it could not posibly be that he would euer sette abroache such manifest grosse and shamelesse vntruths Bels IIII. Chapter Of the Popish execrable Pardons THE XXI VNTRVTH THis chapter though it be but short yet it lacketh not the seale of his occupation for his conclusion is adorned
following cited by Bell in his Suruay Scotus doth as wel establishe confession for the word auricular he hath not though Bell doth forst it in by the lawe of God fouÌ„ded in the God spell as by traditioÌ„ comming from Christ as before hath been noted out of Scotus and this may passe for a notorious vntruth The third is that to conceale this his abusing both of Scotus and also of the The third good reader he cited Scotus his wordes in latin only not vouchsasing to putt them into Englishe but he is to be pardoned for that were not only to ly but also to hould the candle for other to viewe his treachery What sweete stuffe doth he preach to his auditors out of the pulpitt where he is free from all controulment that publisheth such vntruthes and playeth such cunnicatching trickes in the viewe of the whole realme THE XXV VNTRVTH AT the heeles of the former vntruth follow in the same chapter diuers others his wordes be these The Popish Glosse of great credit with the Papists telleth them roundly that auricular confession can no way be desended bnt by tradition of the church he runneth on lying very roundly in this manner Panormitanus Richardus Durandus Bonauentura Hugo and all the Popishe Canonists generally approue and followe the same Glosse In which fewe words be contayned at least three vntruthes of that quality that they may iustly deserue the whetstone The first is that Richardus ioyneth in opinion with the glosse and thinketh sacramentall confession to com from the institution and tradition of the Church for he teacheth the flatt opposite doctrine Respondeo quod omnes c. I aunsweare 4. SeÌ„ dist 17. ar 1. ques 1. quoth Richardus that all are bound of necessity to confesse their sinnes to the Priest because Christ hath commaunded this c. and he proueth it both otherwise and specially out of these wordes of our Sauiour Ioan. 20. Receiue you the holy Ghoste VVhose sinnes you shal forgiue they are forgiuen them and whose you shall retaine they are retained There is one notable vntruth for the minister to tyer vpon THE XXVI VNTRVTH THe second vntruth and that a chopper is that Durandus is also of the same opinion with the glosse when as he doth directly maintayne the contrary his wordes be these De consessione 4. SeÌ„ 1. dist 17. quait 8. autem stricte accepta c. But of confession taken strictly which is a manisestation of our sinnes before a Priest with hope of obtayning pardon it is to be sayd that it is not of the lawe of nature nor of any lawe that is pure humane but of the lawe of God deliuered in the Gospell And after he hath proued that it cometh noâ— from any law that is meere humane he concludeth thus Propter quod relinquitur c. VVherefore remayneth that sacramental confession of which 〈◊〉 speake is only by the law of God and straight after hâ— inueigheth very earnestly against the glosse foâ— houlding the contrary What may not this Minister proue out of any authour and quickelâ— conuince vs by our owne doctors if when theâ— say one thinge he can without all scruple mayntayne them to teache the cleane contrary THE XXVII VNTRVTH THe third vntruth followeth no lesse shal melesse then the former so that it seemeth that he was now in the right vaine of lying foâ— how doth he proue that against Richardus and Dâ—randus which so bouldly he affirmeth For proofâ— straight after he voucheth his Suruay with quotation in the margent and also his Motiues but without any quotation at all Comming to his Suruey there he telleth the same tale against Richardus and Durandus referring him self for thâ— Suruey pag. 502. credit of that he sayeth to Iosephus Angles whom he quoteth in the margent thus Vide Ioseph Angle 4. S. pag. prim I haue not missed it one letter oâ— tittle and yet viewe that place he that will nothing shall be there found it may be he would or at least should haue sayd pag. 209. for I make some doubt whether euer he meant to cite the place truly seing there is in my conceipt some difference betwixt the number of one and the number of 209. and suppose that this booke weare in quarto which is a larger size yet must it much exceede the number of an hundred Perhapps he would haue sayd quest 1. de confessione for the syllables pag. quest resemble one an other so liuely that he might easilye mistake the one for an other The truth is this good reader if any probable coniecture may be admitted that he willingly peruerted the quotation Whether I haue reason to iudg so or no I leaue it to thy censure vpon the examination of the matter not to vrge therefore how in his pamphlet he vsually omitteth all citations of the authors them selues which ministreth iust cause of ielousy nor to speake how vnlikely it is that he could so grosly mistake it I stand only vpon this whether Iosephus Angles hath any such sentence by him alleadged or no if he hath then equity willeth vs to interpret all the the best but if Iosephus hath no such thinge neither doth so much as name Richardus or Durandus then can it not be denyed but that he hath not only belyed those two but also slaundered and corrupted Iosephus by foisting in those two names not founde in him for the concealing of this his treachery quoted him not at all in this pamphlet and gaue a false quotation in his Suruay but the truth is that Iosephus maketh not any mention of Richardus or Durandus In 4. sent quest de consess ar 1. pag. 209. Editionis 1584. apud Bellerum his words be these Confessio sacramentalis is c. Sacramental consession is instituted of Christ Iesus and confequently by the luwe of God c There haue bene six errors which are confuted in this first conclusion The first is of the Glosse of the decret in the begining of the fift distinction Panormitan vpon the chapter omnis vtriusque sexus c. S. Bonauenture and he citeth the authority of Hugo all which affirme that this sacrament was instituted by the Church Howe sayest thou goode reader is not Bell a trusty gospeller for a man to rely his soule vpon God grauntall good people to take heed of such an inward wolfe roabed outwardly with shepes clothing that is protestation of truth and sincerity Yf any obiect here and say that at least the Glosse and Panormitan were of that opinion I willingly graunt them to haue been in an error S. Ciprian erred about rebaptization and yet dyed a glorious martyr yf wefollow not the fathers though otherwise neuer so auncient or learned when they swarue from the common opinion and tradition of the Catholicke Churche doth he thinck that the erroneous conceipt of a moderne doctor or two shal ouersway the Church to the following of their particular and priuat opinions We acknowledge
no such rule of fayth in moderne Canonists adding notwithstanding that where obstinacy possesseth not the will but true obedience to the Church remayneth error may be incurred by humane infirmity negligence obscurity of the matter or the determination of the Church being not yet giuen or not knowen but by no meanes heresy albeit the thing it self may be contrary to fayth or good manners Thus much briefely for their excuse but how the minister can be defended is without the conceipt of all common capacitie I might add for a fourth vntruth how both here and in his Suruey he maketh Iosephus also to mention Rhenanus of whom he speaketh nothing at all But I haue done sufficiently for this Chapter let vs now see what followeth in the next Bels VII Chapter Of Popishe venial synnes THE XXVIII VNTRVTH COncerning his seuenth chapter wherein he disputeth of venial sinnes two things are to be noted before we come to his vntruthes The first is that all Catholick writers both old and new acknowledge and confesse some sinnes to be venial and not to deserue the euerlasting paine of hell fire as by and by shall more plentifully be proued The second is that there be two small things commonly called schole questions wherein diuers follow diuers opinions The first is whether venial sinnes be contrary to the commanundement or beside the commaundement som learned men houlding the one opinion and som embracing the other which is a curious quiddity disputable in scholes and nothing touching the hart of religion and besides none of these but willingly submitte them selues to the censure of the catholik Church and yet the minister as though it were some fundamental point noteth here very grauely out of Iosephus that the one opinion is now more common in the scholes then the other and out of that by maine dexterity of learning inferreth the mutability of our religion but he should haue done well to haue proued first that this concerned religion that is any point of fayth as he would haue it thoughte or els he sayth nothing to the purpose The second schole question though somwhat greater is from whence it cometh that som sinnes be mortal some venial whether from the nature of the sinnes them selues or from the mercy of God The common opinion most receiued and most sound is that some sinnes of their owne nature be small or venial others great and mortall Bishop Fisher and some fower other alleadged by Bell thincke that all sinnes of their owne nature be mortal that it proceedeth from the mercy of God that som be venial because he would not vpon diuers smaller synnes impose so great a punishment But not withstanding this small difference neither B. Fisher nor any of the others deny veniall sinnes as Bell and his consorts doth This being so let vs consider what a notable vntruth and that often rehearsed the minister offereth to the viewe of his readers when he sayth Almainus Durandus Gerson Baius and other famous Papists not able to answeare the reasons against veniall sinnes confesse the truth with the Bishop that euery sinne is mortall He doth cunningly abuse them in leauing out those wordes of it owne nature which ought to haue been added according to their opinion and he like wise doth adde in citing of Roffensis immediatly before doth not this dealing of his argue that he would haue his reader to thincke that these learned men denyed all veniall synnes which damnable doctrine of the Protestants they detest for example Bishop Fisher in his 22. article against Luther houldeth som synnes to be veniall that is such as take not away Gods grace Nec opinor te c. Neither doe I thincke saith Bishop Cont. Lâ— the um art 32. Fisher to Luther that thou wilt say but that a mortall synne so soone as it is committed banisheth grace from the soule and doth constitute the synner him self in the hatred of God and if a mortall synne doth take away Gods grace and not a veniall veryly it is manifest that there is no small difference betwixt a mortall and veniall synne Behould Roffensis teacheth som synnes to be veniall and that there is a greate difference betwixt a mortall and a veniall synne Of the same minde be the other though by his cunning handlinge he would make the to deny veniall synnes and to hould all mortall according to the new doctrine of the Protestants THE XXIX VNTRVTH AFter this vntruth immediately followeth an other Yea the Iesuit S. R. quoth he with the aduise of his best learned friends in his answeare to the downefall of Popery confesseth playnly and blusheth not thereat that the Church of Rome had not defined som synnes to be veniall vntill he dayes of pitts the fift and Gregory the thirtenth which was not fiftie yeares agoe In which words he blusheth neuer a whitt to slaunder that learned man and wholy to corrupt his meaning He saith not that the Church of Rome had not defined som synnes to be veniall vntill the dayes of pius the fift and Gregory the thirteenthe as this licentious cast-away corrupty fathereth vpon him for he knewe well that to beseue veniall synnes was an article long receiued before the times of those Popes but he affirmeth only that to hould veniall synnes to be only such by the mercy of God was censured and condemned by those Popes why did Sr. Thomas his sincerity cut a way these words by the mercy of God forsooth because that without lying and corruption he can obiect nothing against Catholick doctrine The same catholick writer noted him in the place cited by him selfe of two vntruths the one for calling B. Fisher the Pope canonized marty the other for stiling Gerson a Bishop neither of which be true but he slyly passeth ouer them as not knowing poore wretch what to say in his owne defence in to such straights doth this dominiring doctor driue him selfe by his talent of ouerlashinge THE XXX VNTRVTH STraight after this tricke of treachery he crieth out in the feruour of his soule O sweete Iesus what a world is this that silly foolishe Papists should be so bewitched as to thincke Popery the old religion and in that bitter pangue was deliuered of an other abominable ly for it followeth VV see it plainly confessed by our aduersaries that for the space of a thowsande fiue hundred and thre score years all synnes were deemed mortall Had not this minister renounced all modesty and true dealing neuer would he putt in print such palpable vntruths for no one Catholicke author can he name since Christ that denyed veniall synnes the ground of this vntruth is the precedent where he affirmed that the Church of Rome had not defined some synnes to be veniall vntill the dayes of Pius the fift Gregory the thirtebth which being most false as was there sayd it remayneth also that this can not be true which so bouldly here he maintayneth Many sentences of auncient fathers and other notable authors
vniustly when alas he had other wise too many Againe Watson speaketh of matters of fact wherein the Pope may by wronge information be deceiued not of questions of fayth as the Minister cunningly insinuateth if not plainely affirmeth wherein Watson would neuer haue admitted that the Pope might be deceiued and so the foundation of all his cauilling against the Pope as a priuate or publicke person falleth to ground as shall straight more clerely appeare His rusticall immodesty and childishe scoffinge at the Popes nose little becometh the grauity of his ministership and as I think little contenteth his best fauourits but he that is ledde vp and downe by the nose like a Buffalo by the Prince of this world must to gratify his master imploy his rayling talent according to his blacke inspiratioÌ„ God giue him true pennance for these and many more like synnes least fruitles penaÌ„ce in the next world be the reward of such monsterous wickednes Not long after he hath these words For first it is a constant maxime quoth he that the Pope and none but the Pope must iudge in all controuersyes of fayth and doctrine Nay it is rather a most constant Maxime that Bell seldom writeth any thing that is true false it is that the Pope and none but the Pope is the iudge in all matters of fayth and doctrine for a generall Councell also is iudge yea and by the opinion of many learned diuines the Pope iudginge alone without a generall Councell may erre as shall straight appeare and that out of Bell him self THE XXXII VNTRVTH THe next vntruth is contayned in these words That their Pope can not erre in faith iudicially is this day with Papists an article of their faith An vntruth I say it is for though the more common and better opinion be that the Pope in his iudiciall and definitiue sentence can not erre in faith yet false it is that this is an article of faythe when as many diuines both haue and do hould the contrary To proue which thinge I neede no better witnes then Bell him self whose great grace it is to say that in one place which he denieth in an other making the winde to blowe as serueth best for the trafficke of such a marchant In his motiues he setteth downe this conclusion Pag. 47. Not only the Pope as Pope may erre in his publike decrees when he alone defineth matters of fayth or manners but also when he so defineth with a prouinciall Romishe Councell This conclusion is certayne and vndoubtedly true euen by the testimony of best learned Papists and because Bellarminus doth not deny this to be so I willalleage his words which be these Secunda opinio est c. The second opinion is that the Lib. 4. de Roman Pont. cap. 2. Pope euen as Pope may be an heretike and teach heresy if he define without a generall Councell and that this in very deede hath chaunced so This opinion doth Nilus followe and defend in his booke against the Popes primacye the same opinion haue some of the vniuersity of Paris follouced as Gerson and Almain in their bookes of the churches power and of their opinion also are Alphonsus and Adrian who all do not ascribe the infallibillity of iudgement to the Pope but to the church or to a generall Councell only in all matters of fayth Out of these words of his I inferre first that he trippeth when he sayeth that their Pope can not erre in matters of faithe iudicially is this day with the Papists an article of their faith for here he confesseth the contrary I deduce secondly that he grossely contradicteth himself affirming that in one place which he denieth in an other I gather thirdly that he ouer-reached as I noted before when he affirmed that we make none but the Pope iudge of all controuersies for generally all Catholicks make a Councell with the Pope also the iudge and some as hath nowe been said in no case make the Pope alone the iudge but iointly with a generall Councell THE XXIIII VNTRVTH AN other followeth immediately in the next words in which he will needes proue cut of Sotê° that it is this day an article of faith that the Pope can not erre iudicially That their Pope quoth he can not erre in fayth iudicially it is this day witâ— Papists an article of their faith the famous Papist Dominicus Soto shall be the spokes man for the rest alber saith he the Pope as Pope can not erre that is to say can not sett down any errour as an article of fayth because the holy Ghost will not permitte that neuerthelesse as he is a priuat person so he may erre euen in fayth as he may do other synne These words of Soto proue very well that the Pope as Pope could not erre which the moste an best diuines doe also maintayne but no worde on syllable hath he that this is an articl of faith which was the pointe that Bell should haue proued and for which he pretended to cite his words but in them no suche thinge appeareth and therfore the minister doth knowe what followeth THE XXXIIII VNTRVTH IN the words ensuing straight after he runneth vpon this doctrine taught by Soto and generally houlden of Catholickes vz that the Pope can not erre in fayth and confidently auoucheth that it was neuer heard of till of late daies his wordes be Lib. 2. Doctrina lis fidei cap. 47. 48. Lib. 2. Summe cap. 109. c. these This only will I say that this Popishe article the Pope can not erre in faith was neuer heard of in Christs Churche for the space of a thowsande fiue hundred yeares A gallante vntruth worthy of the reformed minister Thomas waldensis was longe before that time as also Turrecremata both which hould that the Pope can not erre in fayth and not only late writers but the auncient fathers haue taught the same doctrine reying them selues vpon the promise and words of our Sauiour in the Gospell to name two or three S. Augustin Numerate sacerdotes c. Number the Priests In psal contr partem Donati saith he yea euen from the very seat of Peter in that order of fathers see who succeeded whom that is the rocke which the proude gates of hell do not ouercom S. Cirill mentioned by S. Thomas Aquinas speakinge of that promise In Catena of Christe Math. 16. hath these words According to this promise the Apostolicall Church of Peter remayneth pure from all deceipt and hereticall circumuention Innocentius the third He vnderstandeth saith this holy and learned Epist ad episc Arelatens Pope that the greater causes of the Churche specially such as he about articles of faith are to be referred to the see of Peter that knoweth how our Lord prayd for him that his fayth might not fayle And to be short his deere brother Perkins once Verbo Primatus num 17. more shall testify against him The Pope saith he hath not infallible
of all Saintes and all the good thou doe and the punishement thou shalt suffer be to thee for remission of thy synnes for increase of grace and for the reward of eternall lise which words of Polanchus he doth prosecute with this lying glosse Lo the merits of Saints are ioint purchasers of saluation with Christs bloud and our workes procnre vs remission of our synnes increafe of grace and eternall glory An vntruth it is that the merits of Saints are ioynt purchasers of saluation with Christs bloud if he meane that the merits of Christ and his Saints doe alike auaile to saluation as he must meane or els he saith nothing for the merits of Christ are as I saied before the wellspring from whence all the merits of all mens actions doe proceede and they he for the infinit dignity of the person acceptable of them felues in the sight of his father but the merits of Saints are derieued from Gods grace by the merits of Christ and are not grateful in the eies of God but for his sacred merits and passion the merits therefore of Christ and his Saints may auaile vs for the obtayning of spirituall gists the merits of Christ as the principall cause the merits of Saints as dependent of his and the secondary cause And that God and his creatures may in this manner without any iniury to his name be ioyned together we learne out of sacred scripture Iacob Genes 48. v. 15. 16. desired God and his Angell to blesse his children The Israelites cryed out the sword of our Lord and Gedeon In Exodus we reade thus They beleeued Iud. 7. v. 20. Exod. 14. v. 31. 1. Timoth. v. 21. Act. 15. v. 28. our Lord and Moises his seruante S. Paul testified before Christ Iesus and the elect Angels And the Apostles doubted not to say It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and to vs. If in these and such like speaches God and his creatures be ioyned together without being made ioynt purchasers for I trust Bell hath not the courage to vtter any such word but as the creator and the secondary cause in like manner may the merits of Christ and his Saints be conioyned as hath been sayed THE XLIIII VNTRVTH AFter a fitt of railing at this doctrine of the Catholique Church in praying to God by the merits of his Saints he saith No scripture no Councell no approued history was euer acquainted with this newly inuented heresy neuer knowne to the Church of Christ for the space of one thousand yeares and odde An vntruth it is that it is any heresy to pray to God by the merits of his Saints as the heretical minister bouldly afflrmeth but alleageth neither scripture Councell or father or approued history to giue credit to his assertion so much he presumeth vpon his owne authority Falsealso it is that it was neuer knowen for the space of a thousand yeares To proue one and the other against Bell In the old testament for so much as iust men then dying went not straight to heauen their raunsom being not paied as here I suppose according to the Catholique doctrine nor they ordinaryly knowing the praiers of the liuing therefore they did not in those tymes vse to pray vnto them formally saying S. Abraham pray for vs as we in the newe testament do yet did they pray vnto God by the merits of his seruaunts as we read in sundry places neither doth that auoid the argument which Bell answeareth in his Suruey viz that Pag. 318. not the merits of his Saints were vrged but his owne promise and couenant sett before him for The merits of holy men prescnted before God Psal 131. 3. Reg. 15. their merits also be remembred and not only the couenant of God for example Salomon prayeth to God by the merits of his father Dauid saying Remember o Lord Dauid and all his meekenes and a little after For Dauid thy seruant turne not away the face of thy Christ and in the booke of Kings we reade For Dauid our Lord God gaue him a candle in Israel that he might raise vp his sonne after him because that Dauid had done right in the eies of our Lord. S. Augustin relying vpon these such like sayings teacheth that the merits of his Saints may auayle vs in the sight of God Quest. 149. in Exodiâ— Admonemur cum merita nostra c. we are admonished quoth he that when our owne synnes do ly heauy vpon vs that we be not loued of God that we may be holpen with him by their merits whom God doth loue In the newe Testament we find the same doctrine confirmed The sicke man of the palsey was cured for their fayth which brought him to our Sauiour for the sacred text saith and Iesus seing Math. 9. v. 2. their fayth said to the sicke of the palsey haue a good hearâ— sonne thy synnes are sorgiuen thee Yf the fayth of hiâ— seruants liuing vpon earth and dayly offendinâ— him procured mercy to others how much morâ— may the burning charity of his Saints in heauen free from all daunger of synning obtayne for vâ— spirituall benefits at the hand of our heauenly father Much more might be brought but not necessary when as Perkins confesseth sufficient to ouerthrowe Bell for reprehending the auncient fathers as attributing to much vnto the intercession of Saints he citeth these words of S. Leo as offending Problem verbo Intercessio inuocatio c. in that kinde VVe beleue and trust that to obtaynâ— the mercy of God we shall alwaies be holpen by the praiers oâ— our speciall patrones that so much as we are kept down by our owne synnes so much we may be listed vp by the merits of the Apostles And yet Bell inuaigheth against this doctrine as blasphemous and more confidently then truly affirmeth that no scripture no Councell no father no approued history euer knewe it and that it was neuer knowen to the Church for the space of one thousand years and odde how truly how sincerely I referre me to the premisses THE XLV VNTRVTH I Must therfore conclude saith the Minister with this meuitable illation ergo Popishe inuocation of Saintes but a rotten ragge of the newe religion and to shewe â—ow new it is he quoteth in the margeÌ„t the yeare â—fter this manner that is in the yeare of our Lorde â—ne thousand fower hundred and seauen which An. Dom. 1407. â—s some two hundred yeares agoe But I may far â—etter inferre that for grosse vntruths and cunâ—ing lying he may be let loose to any of the Miâ—isterie what one of Bels dependants that reade â—he former wordes or any other not acquainted with his trickes would not veryly thinke that praying to Saints as it is vsed in the Catholique Church is not aboue two hundred years old as the tenor of his wordes import and yet I doe not thincke he will stande to that for yf he shoulde most certaine it is that it is a grosse and
and thirty as more bouldly theâ— truly he affirmeth Sozomenus and Nicephorus report Lib. 8. hist cap. 5. Lib. 13. cap. 7. how a certayne woman infected with thâ— heresy of Macedonius the better to conceale her religion came to the Church and receiued the sacrament from the hand of S. Chrysostome as it werâ— with a minde straight waies to eate it but shâ— cunningly gaue it to her maide and receiued of heâ— other bread brought from home which when she went about to eate she found it straight turneâ— into a stone This fact sheweth that all then receiued not the chalice for then this woman could not haue dissembled both because the chalice was not giuen into her owne hands as the consecrated hoast then was and though it had no such euasion is imaginable An other example we haue in Pope Leo the Serm. 4. de Quaâ—irages first who saith that the Manichees to conceale their heresy vsed to receiue the consecrated hoast with Catholiques but not the chalice which argueth that it was free at that tyme to receiue the chalice or not for had they bene all bound to receiue the chalice the Manichees could not but haue bene knowen as they which neuer tooke the chalice and therfore S. Leo commaundeth not to obserue them who somtyme did receiue the chalice and somtyme did not but those which did â—uer receiue it at all for at that tyme it was a â—te of a Manichee that sect detesting the drinâ—â—ge of wine as a thinge vtterly vnlawfull and â—â—linge it the deuils gall I omitt much more â—hich might be brought out of antiquity yea out â—â— scripture it self some thing before hath bene â—â—uched and more to that purpose very strongly â—ight be vrged but breuity to which I am inforâ—â—d maketh me to passe ouer many things Only for a conclusion I can not but note how â—â—norant Sir Thomas of Rascall entreateth learâ—ed S. Thomas of Aquine whom first he maketh by â—â—nning insinuation to say that about his tyme â—hey began in some odd Churches to leaue of the â—uppe and to minister the sacrament in bread â—nly whereof he hath not one word and no â—arualle when it was of far greater continuance â—s hath been said but more plainely doth he â—aunder him when he maketh him to say that to â—inister the Sacrament in bread only was done â—n some fewe places only his words are these Therefore prouidently in some Churches it is obserued that 3. par q. 40. art 22. â—he bloud be not giuen to the people to be receiued but be â—nly taken of the Priest Where he doth not say that â—his was in some fewe places only as Bell maketh â—im to speake but that in some Churches it was â—o obserued which might be very many as well as some fewe and that this was the reall and true meaninge of S. Thomas in the same very place is gathered out of his owne discourse for hauing propounded some arguments after the manner of Scholes against the truth to witt that it was not lawfull to receaue the body of Christ without his bloud he cometh to the contrary opinion which 3. par quast 80. ar 12. he there defendeth and saith But contrary to this iâ— the vse of many Churches in which the body of Christ auâ— not his bloud is giuen to the people that communicateth In which wordes blessed S. Thomas enformeth vs that the body of Christ and not his bloud was giuen to the people in many Churches Saintlesse Sir Thomas maketh him to say that the body of Christ was giuen in some fewe places only when as he hath neither the words nor the sence but the clean opposit wordes and meaninge Halensis also more auncient then S. Thomas as who was his master testifieth that in his time it was almost a generall custome to receiue vnder one kinde Very lawfull it is saith that learned man to receau Part. 4. quast 11. memb 2. art 4. num 3. the body of Christ vnder the forme of bread only alay men do almost euery where in the Church and yet all this not witstandinge the minister blusheth not to father the direct contrary opinion vpon blessed S. Thomas Bels XIII Chapter Of priuate Masse THE XLVIII VNTRVTH THat any Prieste in the Primatiue Churche said priuate Masse that is receiued the mysteries all alone none being to communicat with him our aduersaries generally denie houlding that they euer had other participants in that sacred ction This was saith Bell the vse and practise of the hurche euery where for more then a thousand yeares together But afterward when the peoples deuotion began to be remisse the Priestes then deuoured vp all alone This minister that hath deuoured vp all conscience little areth in what manner he speaketh of those myteries which antiquity so reuerenced that they would not speake of them but in couert tearmes before infidels and S. Chrysostom calleth tremeÌ„da mysteria Hom. 69. ad Pepulum dreadsull mysteries and yet he speaketh of them as homely as though he were talking of the English coÌ„munion wich is had in such high reuerence that the coÌ„munion booke prescribeth that the fragments remaininge shall be for the ministers priuate vses and so giueth him leaue to feede with them his chickens or to soppe his pottage To the matter an vntruth it is that priuate masses were not before the tyme he mentioneth The twelft Councell of Toleto almost nine hundred yeares agoe reprehendeth those Priests which offering sacrifice did not communicate Quale illud sacrificium c. what manner of sacrifice is Can. 5. that saith the Councell of whiche neither he that sacrificeth is knowen to be partaker which words do shewe that none was present to communicate and yet the Councell requireth only that the Priest himself doth communicate S. Augustin also recordeth how a Priest offered sacrifice in Lib. 22. de ciuit cap. 8. a priuate farme for the freeing of that place from the molestation of wicked spirits In so particular and extraordinarie a place and for so particular a busines no probability that there were any other communicants But to com vpon him with the authority â— his brother Perkins who confesseth that thâ— Problem verbo Missa priuata kinde of priuate masses were not knowen to thâ— Church for the space of eight hundred yeares nâ— denying but afterward they were vsed which â— two hundred yeares more then Bell will grauntâ— In the same place he coÌ„fe sseth that priuate masseâ— began first in monasteries for proosse whereof he citeth S. Gregory which both conuinceth Beâ— of ouerreaching and seemeth not very well tâ— agree with his former assertion for how werâ— not priuate Masses knowen to the Church for thâ— space of eight hundred yeares yf S. Gregory maketh mention of them two hundred yeares before The truth is good reader that no beginning here oâ— can be showen nor any authenticall author iâ— former tyme that complayned or opposed himself against any such
custome as newly brought in and contrary to the practise of the Church or institution of Christ which is an argument that it is passing auncient and was neuer reputed for false doctrine or repugnarite to sacred scripture Bels XIIII Chapter Of Pope Martins dispensation for the brother to marry his naturall sister THE XLIX VNTRVTH SVch is Bels malice against the Pope that when better matter faileth he fetcheth lies out of the â—ard flint his words be these Pope Martin sayth Part. 3. tit 1. cap. 11. prope finem Antoninus the Popishe Archbishop and canonized Saint â—oke vpon him to bispense with one that he might marry his â—wne naturall sister A magnificall vntruth twice â— old before and shall againe if he haue any more â—ookes to publishe for his latter bookes be nothing els but certaine ragges drawen from the â—unghill of his former what he saith of Pope Martin is a notable vntruth as is apparante out of S. Antoninus owne wordes which for loue to sincerity he would not cite intierely in his Downfall where this knocker crept first foorth some he alleadged but so corruptly that hauing bene wel canuased for that his treacherie both in the Pag. 33. 34. c. Lib. 2. cap. 7. pag. 226. c. Forerunner and also in the Dolefull Knell and not knowing how to defend himself he hath for all that still intertayned the vntruth but wholy concealed the words for more sure dealing S. Antoninus his wordes be these hauing relation to others precedent which make also against Bell. Neuerthelesse it is found that Pope Martin the fift did dispense Part. 3. tit 1. cap. 11. with a certayne man who had contracted and consummated matrimony with a certayne naturall sister of her with whom he had committed fornication yet with great difficulty and because the matter was secret and the man not fitt for religion or to remoue into any other countrey and so scandall would haue followed of the diuorce if it had been made Pope Martin then dispensed not with a man to marry his owne natural sister but to remayne stille in marriage with her whose naturall sister before marriage he had carnally knowen this is so playne and perspicuous that the good reader can not but behould it and perceiue that the Minister had good reason not to alleage Antoninus words the more handsomly to conuay the vntruth Of this shamelesse dealing of his I haue in treated so plentifully in the Dolefull Knell Lib. 2. cap. 7. examining all the particular circumstances of Antoninus his discourse and answeared also what heâ— bringeth there out of Siluester Fumus Angelus Nauar and Caietan obiected also by him before in his Funerall that I take it for a vaine labour to intreate againe of the same matter Wherefore to proceede Bels XV. Chapter Of worshipping of Images THE L. VNTRVTH RVnning with his penne against the veneration giuen to sacred images he saith Yeâ— Gregory the great in his tyme sharply reproued the worshippâ— done to images albeit he disliked Serenus the good Bishop of Massilia for breaking the same in the Church Neither S. Gregory nor Serenus any thing help Bell and such I conomachall companions but both of them stande in mortall defiance against him S. Gregory Lib. 6. ep 5. seuerely reproued Serenus for his rashe breaking downe the images of the church attempting to doe that which as he saith neuer any Bishoppe had done before him Whereof I inferre that images in the Primatiue Church were in vse yea and kept in sacred places and consequently that our Englishe Protestans be coÌ„trary to venerable antiquitie that suffer not any such holy monumeÌ„ts in the Church out rase and deface them with all spight and cruelty contrary also to S. Gregory who reprehending Serenus though nothing so guilty would not I think haue spared Bell and his fraternity for their enormous impious proceeding herein Were I desirous to imitate the minister very handsomly might I come vpon him with a concludinge inference in this manner ergo this beating downe of images is a rotten ragge of the newe Caluinian religion borrowed from Iewes Mahometans and such misbeleeuing miscreants But S. Gregory saith Bell sharply reproued the worshippe done to images true it is but what kinde of worshippe was it The minister would haue the reader to thinke that it was the same which the Catholike Church alloweth and teacheth which is nothing so for it was passing far different for as much as S. Gregory allowed conuenient adoration as shal straight be said Cardinal Bellermin thincketh that this erroneous worship was giuen by certain new ChristiaÌ„s surely such were most likely to fall into that grosse sinne of whom it is not so much to be maruailed if accustomed before to idols they behaued themselfes in like maÌ„ner to wards sacred images and adored them for gods as in Paganisme they were taught practised Serenus vpoÌ„ this abhominable accideÌ„t moued with zeale but not according to knowledge ouerthre we those images which S. Gregory reproued in him for that he ought to haue instructed them reformed what was amisse and not so depely to haue scaÌ„dalized the Church with such a strange fact as S. Gregory in expresse wordes signifieth that he did and therfore aduiseth himafter due instruction giuen to the people to restore the images to ther former places This was the adoration which that holy Pope disliked VVhat adoratioÌ„ of images S. Gregorie disliked for that he denyed not all kind of veneration is most certayne for writing to one Ianuaring a Bishoppe about the image of the blessed virgin and the crosse which he willeth to be taken from the Synagogue of the Iewes where they had been putt he speaketh thus VVe exhort you in these words that the image and crosse be taken from thence with that Lib. 7. epis 5. veneration which is worthy And in an other place writing to one Secundinus who had sent vnto him for the image of our Sauiour his words be these I knowe verilie that you doe not therfore desire the image of our Sauiour that you may worshippe it as thoughe it were god but that by remembrance of the sonne of God you may wax warme in his loue whose image you see And we fal Lib. 7. epis 53. prostrate before it not as it were before the diuinity What hath Bell gott by vouching the authority of S. Gregory About the retayning of images in Churches he is directly against him as he can not deny concerning their adoratioÌ„ also he nothing helpeth him but teacheth that which nothing pleaseth his reformed spirit and therfore true it is not that he reproued the worshippe done to images as Bell affirmeth speaking of that worshippe which the Church alloweth as the minister would haue his reader to thincke for the other worshippe we detest as much as he Albeit sufficieÌ„t hath been said to she we that he wrongeth S. Gregory yet is not this the vntruth which I intended
here especially to note though willing I was to purge our Apostle from his false imputation but it is touching a learned scholeman one Gabriel Biel whom moste notoriously he slaundereth writing thus Yea Gabriel Biel a religious Popishe frier and a very learned schole doctor who liued longe after Gregory and Serenus euen one thousand fower hundred eighty and fower yeares after Christ doth sharply inuaigh and reproue the worshippe done to images This I challenge for a grosse vntruth Where doth Biel thus sharply inuaigh reproue the worshippe done to images he quoteth him in Can. Missae â—ect 40. Where nothing is handled of any such subiect it may be he would say lect 49. A small fault especially in Bell being one of such knoweÌ„ truth that he neuer vseth any such slightes vnlesse it be for the better passage of the Gospell To lette that passe why hath he not cited his words he may preteÌ„d what reasoÌ„ he please but he must giue me leaue to thincke that there is none other saue only that he knewe not truly where to finde them he shamefully slaundereth Gabriel Biel he is so far froÌ„ sharply reprouing worshippe done to images that he teacheth plainly that they are to be worshipped That learned man propouÌ„deth two opinioÌ„s concerning In can Missae lect 49. this matter the one of them that hould that the image is to be honored with the same honour which is due to the prototypon or first sample after he hath bronght authorities for that with an explicatioÌ„ of the same he cometh to the secoÌ„d opinioÌ„ which seemeth coÌ„trary to the former teaching that images are not permitted in the Churches to be adored but to the end that the mindes of faithful people may be stirred vp to reuerence and honour those whom they represent this opinion Gabriel supposeth to be Holcotes Hauing deliuered these two opinions betwixt which as he saith there is more disagreement in wordes then in the thinge it self and disputed of them both and the operation of our soule as well in respect of that which is represented by the image as the image it self he concludeth in this manner But the question quoth he is whether that act or operation by which I an carryed to the image ought to be called adoration to which I say that it is called adoration analogically and improperly not properly because it is in respect of a creature In which wordes Gabriel houldeth that images may be adored though not properly that is with that honour and adoration peculiar only to God called Latria but with a lesser kind of adoration which he calleth Analogicall or improper because it is infinitly inferiour to the former and due only to the image for that respect and relation which it hath to that which it doth represent Iudge now good reader whether Bell hath not most grossely slaundered him when so confidently he auoucheth that he doth sharply inuaighe and reproue the worshippe done to images when as he is so far from reprouing it that he alloweth it in manner before specifyed An other thinge here occurreth worth the nothinge and that is where as Bell hath the same matter on foote in the pamphlet of his woefull crys Cap. 18. as his manner is of the same very matter to make diuers bookes he citeth as Gabriels words those which be not his but rather Holcots though alleadged by Gabriel which also he doth interpret to a good sence as before was sayed But here without euer setting downe any wordes of Gabriel at all he maketh him sharply to muaighe against the adoration of images when no such sharpe wordes he loth or can name and so iniuriously abuseth him both in the one place and the other so little respect â—arrieth he to religion or fidelitie though he would seeme to be the only sincere teacher and of he moste tender conscience in the whole worlde Bels XVI Chapter Of Church seruice in the vulgar tongue THE LI. VNTRVTH TO proue that the publique seruice of the Church ought to be in the vulgar tongue he citeth the names of many authors without euer setting dowue their sentences thinking it sufficient to referre the reader to his Suruay where he hath laid out their words at large Howe truly he behaueth himself in diuers of them I knowe not hauing not viewed the quotations partly for that my purpose is not to examin his whole Triall partly for lacke of tyme partly for that some of them make not so much as any outward showe against vs therefore a vaine labour to bestowe any tyme that way One only will I speake of and that shall be of S. Gregory our blessed Apostle whom Bell abuseth so grossely that it can not but appeare straight to the eye of the attentiue reader for he bringeth Suruey pag. 477. forth his formall words and then prosecuteth them with a false glosse directly repugning to his wordes Pope Gregory himself quoth he confirmeth the doctrine in these wordes Sed Dominica oratio apud Grecos Lib. 7. ep 25. cap. 63. ab omni populo dicitur apud nos autem a solo sacerdot Furthermore among the Greekes all the people say the Lord praier but with vs the Priest alone saith it This prouer not that the publique seruice of the Churche was in any other language then in the sacred tongue of the Greek Latin c. for the Grecians might vnderstand the Priest though their seruice were iâ— Greke because that tongue was to them the vulgar and common But suppose that it had been s decaied that it was not vnderstood of the coÌ„mo people yet might they say the Lords praier with them for generaly all Catholickes at this tym though ignoraÌ„t of the latin tongue can say our lordes prayer in latin so might now say it together with the Priest did the custome permitte it But I inuite here the good reader to the noting â—â— a prety slight other wise called a false pranke of S. Thomas After the former words of S. Gregory he addeth this glosse of his owne flatte opposite to the text Behold quoth he this Gregory liued fiue hundred and ninty yeares after Christes sacred incarnation yet it his daies the people of Rome prayed with the Minister euen the tyme of masse S. Gregory telleth vs that the Prieâ— alone said the lords praier Sr. Thomas maintay neth out of those words of S. Gregorie that the people praied with the minister euen in the tyme of masse What may not his maÌ„ proue or disproue yâ— when a father affirmeth one thing he can without all conscience not only collect an other much different but also the flatt contrary That the publique seruice of the Church was in auncient tyme in that tougue which the people commonly vnderstood not omitting other arguments I will proue it briefly out of the practise of of our countrey in which the masse was alwaies in latin from the first conuersion vntill our owne memory Yf
Epistle and Gospell The Creed was receiued of the Nicene Councell Pope Sergius the Agnus Dei after which he concludeth both of these and others which he there mentioneth as the Introite Halleluia the commemoration of the dead Incense and the Pax in this manner This being so I can not but conclude that euery patch and peece of the Romishe Masse is but a rotten ragge of the newe religion So earnest he is to make euery peece of the Masse a rotten ragge that he hath also made many parts of their owne Communion booke patches and peeces and rotten ragges to the great exultation of all truly deuoted to the Geneua discipline in which Kyrie eleison Gloria in excelsis The Collectes Epistle and Gospell Nicene Crede and Agnus Dei be founde no lesse then in our Masse bookes I omitte here how falsely and blasphemously he concludeth euery peece of the Masse to be rotten ragges for are the words of consecratiō the most essentiall part thereof which came not from any man but from the institution of Christ himself as also the Pater noster rotten ragges who durst say it but Sr. Thomas And here by the way the attentiue reader may easily answear a common and friuolous obiection of the Protestāts that maruaile how we make the Masse the sacrifice of the new testamēt to haue bene ordayned by Christ himself when as Durandus others note at what tyme and who they were that composed the parts thereof when as neither Durandus nor any other make the essential and very substantiall part of the masse that is the wordes of consecratiō to haue come from any other then the sonne of God but they speake of the accidentall parts thereof to witt either deuoute prayers or ceremonies which we willingly graunt to proceede from the institution of Christes Church The like may be said of the Protestants communion which they pretend to deriue not from any other then Christ himself and yet many of their praiers ceremonies which accōpany that actiō they can not shewe out of Gods word but must confesse to come from later institution can not finde more auncient authors then be alleaged for ours the moste of which liued more then a thousand years since and be glorious Saints in heauen and therfore what doth Bell and such like Ministers that deride the ceremonyes and parts of the Masse but frump and flout at sacred and venerable antiquity from whom they come as Sr. Thomas here confesseth and mocke and mowe at their owne communion booke and partes thereof being borrowed frō vs or in what they differ can shewe no greater antiquity then the late daies of Edward the Sixt at what tyme diuers ministers did hammer them in the forge of their owne inuention Bels XVIII Chapter Of the profounde mysteries of Popish masse IN this chapter the minister maketh himself some pastime for that one ceremony vsed in former tymes is now giuen ouer and out of vse as though the Church hath not that authority as before out of Bell was proued The Englishe congregation allowed by act of Parlamēt in kinge Edwards time the newe communion booke for sound and agreable to Gods word yet was it in the same kings daies and not long after abrogated a newe deuised not only differēt in ceremonyes but also in points of more importance For exāple in the first cōmunion book in the supper of the Lord or newe masse for that name also they mention they pray for the dead saying VVe commend vnto thy Fol. 11◠mercy o Lord all other thy seruants which are departed hence Praier for the dead in the first Englishcommunion booke from vs with the signe of fayth and nowe do rest in the sleepe of peace Graunt vnto them we beseche the thy mercy and euerlastinge peace c. But this doctrine was straight reformed and no such thing found in the next And the minister himself in one Queenes daies chaunged his fayth twice and would I make no doubt chaunge it twice more if any newe and pleasing reuelation should blowe in the skye He and his congregation that haue made so maine mutations no waies maintainable may be silent with shame and not speake of the change of a small ceremony which both according to vs and himself is lawfull and may be done by the Church as the honour of God and edifications of others shall require the same Bels XIX Chapter Of kissinge the Popes feete THis chapter of his flingeth at the kissinge of the Popes feete which yet he confesseth here an Emperour to haue done nine hundred yeares agoe Let him answear what I wrote of that pointe in the Forerunner for in his Funerall he hath not Pag. 43. See also the Doleful knel. pag. 148. done it which yet is the pretended answear to that treatise or for shame commaunde the clapper to silence Bels XX. Chapter Of prayinge vpon Beades HEre the minister runneth vpon Rosaries and praying vpon beades making the beginning thereof some fiue hundred years agoe before that tyme he saith the people of God vsed altogether godly bookes of praier And what praiers I besech him did they vse that could not reade at all or doe now amongest them which lacke that skille of which sort the number is not fewe This inconuenience with vs is auoided by sayinge of the beades which none so ignorant but can vse and so fruitfully spend their tyme. Mary with the Protestants they must vse bookes that can neuer a letter on the booke or praye by speciall reuelation As the Church setteth forth diuers bookes of praiers for the benefitt of them that can reade so may she institute the beades for those that can not Let him shewe that the praiers vpon the beades be not good or that no manner of praier though good may be vsed which was not in the Apostles tyme neither of which he will euer be able to shewe or els all his babling against the beades is not worth a rotten beade Thomas Sternhold Robert VVisdom and such like haue inuented long since the coming vp of the beades the harmonious canticles of Geneua psalmes will he for all that say as he doth of the beades that the rehearsall of the originall is sufficient confutation and call them a rotten ragge of the newe religion Veryly I will not deny but he may do it truly were it not that their religion indeede is so newe that the ragge as yet can scarse be rotten The very same obiection which he maketh against the beades may proceede against the very communio◠book it self and that far more iustly seing it is a la◠crabstocke of their owne planting as before hat◠benesaid It were better for him to looke vnto hi◠owne fripperie and the cast canions of the congregation then to meddle with the sacred wardroa◠of the Catholique Church Bels XXI Chapter Of chaunging the Popes name IN this chapter he doth reuell at the chaunging of the Popes name which no question
quoteth Durandus in the margent whom notoriously he abuseth as also Pope Sergius For Durandus is so far from saying Lib. 1. cap. 6. that this was done that the Christian Romans should not be inferiour to the Pagan Romans in heathenishe superstition as Bell writeth that he affirmeth Pope Sergius to haue chaunged that Paganicall fashion in melius into a better thinge signifyinge playnely that this ceremony was instituted for the abolishinge of that heathenishe custome which is a thing so far from iuste reprehension that on the contrary it is most highely to be commended as a most religious pollicy tending to the distruction of superstition and encrease of piety and deuotion Neither doth Durandus make this the only cause of that ceremonie for the reckoneth vp six in all whereof this is the second in order Bels XXVII Chapter Of the doubtfull oath which Popish Bishoppes make to the Pope IN this chapter he complayneth that whereas Bishoppes had free accesse to Councels to speake the truth out of the scripture in former Anno Dō 1229. Decret Lib. 2. tit 24. cap. 4. tymes Gregory the ninth ordayned that none should haue voices in Councels but such as sware obedience to the Pope and promised with an oath to defend his Canon lawe adding that the expresse words of the oath the Reader may finde in the Downesall of Poperie but he should withall haue added also here that the forme of that oath is iustifyed against his cauils by one S. R. Art 7. chap. 14. in his learned answear to that booke of his where he sheweth that the like oath was made to Gregory the great Bell not hauing yet deuised with himself what to say in his owne defence dissembleth the answear though in an other place of his pamphlett he confesseth to haue seene S. R. his Chap. 9. booke and so he is freshe vp with this oath as though it had neuer bene answeared or he had neuer spoken of it before when as he had it also Pag. 60. vp in his Motiues and in his next worke not vnlikely but we may heare newes of it againe such is his grace in writinge and the great choise he hath of abundant matter Here I am to admonishe the good reader of newes which I receiued lately and that is after I had written thus much Bels reply called The Iesuits Antepast came piping hoat to mine hands from the pallace of his kitching in defence of his Douwnesall against the answear of S. R. and therefor making no doubt but that he had at least attempted to batter in pieces all that S. R. had said in defence of that oath and so spoiled also the grace of that which I had brought out of him I thought good to take a taste wherevpon I fell abord with his Antepast opened the dishes and found there a miserable poore pittance all the fatte through the cookes negligence being fallen into the fire for S. R. disputeth for the lawefulnes thereof Art 30. chap. 14. in this manner As for the oaths of Bishops made to the the Pope the lawfulnes thereof appeareth because it is made with all Catholique Princes consent and meant only in iust and lawfull things which are according to Gods lawe and holy Canons and it hath bene vsed aboue a thousand yeares agoe as is euident by the like oath made by a Bishoppe vnto S. Gregory the great and S. Bonifacius Lib. 10. ep 31. Baron ann 723. See cōcil Tolet an 11. can 10. the Apostle of Germany and worthyest man that euer England bredde did sweare when he was consecrated Bishoppe to concurre with the Pope and commodities of his Church in which words is contayned that which I said in defence thereof To all which this kitchin minister saith not one worde and yet in great brauery he writeth thus Say on good frier thou shalt be heard with all fauour To Antepast pag. 147. imitate his vaine may I not rather say it is not so Sir Lyer thou hast curtald a way the beginning of his answeare of good moment and very sufficient for the iustification of that oath in generall is this to be heard with fauour not so but it is with coosenage to abuse the good reader which carryeth with it a stinking sauour The rest of that which he iangleth about the oath I leaue to S. R. yet this will I briefly say that for as much I haue here readd his answear stādeth sound without the losse of any one droppe of bloud notwithstāding the terrible Cānon shott of Bels Antepast And the principall of that which he mustereth together for the refelling thereof is contayned in this his Triall about which I nowe labour in the eight chapter where he intreateth of the Popes fayth Let that be perused which I haue said before in the examination of that chapter and it will sone appeare that it is not the buckler of his Antepast that can defend our newe cooke from the wounding of his old carcas Thus much of his eleauen chapters Here for a conclusion I must adde a word or two The first is that how truly or falsely he hath alleadged authors I knowe not hauing perused the places of fewe because the subiect was not waighty but only of ceremonies or matters of small moment The second is which I noted also before that grauntinge authority to the Church to ordaine ceremonies he goeth against his owne doctrine in calling them rotten ragges of a newe religion teacheth others how to entertayne those ceremonies which either they haue borrowed from vs or els brought forth by a later generation The last is that where as he confesseth many of our ceremonies to be very auncient as the Introit of the masse which was instituted as he saith by Celestine the Pax brought in by Innocentius and the Paschall torch ordained by Sozimus all which Popes liued about some twelue hundred years agoe with what face or grace can he speake so scornfully of them calling them rotten ragges when as disputinge against the Puritanicall fraternity in defence of English ceremonies in his booke called The Regiment of the Church antiquity is vrged the practise of the Church inculcated with all his learning he laboureth to procure credit to their ceremoniall lawes institutions as is euident out of all that treatise And to speake som what in particular To proue the vse of the Surplesse or albe he alleadgeth a Can. 14. Canon of the fourth Councell of Carthage which he doth highly extol in this manner At this Councel In his Regiment cap. 8. pag. 82. quoth he were present two hundred and fourtene Bishoppes of which S. Augustin was one and yet all those holy men liuing in those dayes when no corruption of religion had crept into the Church affirme constantly c. Behould good reader ther chaūgable conditiō of this Chameleon The Albe or Surplesse is a commendable ceremony and reuerent rite because it was allowed in the tyme of